How do you interpret the 2nd Amendment?

CW2 Jonathan Kantor — Mon, 14 Apr 2014 19:29:10 -0400

First off, I support our 2nd Amendment rights to own weapons.  I do want regulations in place just like our regulations on other licensed property such as cars, but at the core, I support our Bill of Rights and am a liberal member of the ACLU.<div><br></div><div>How do you interpret the 2nd Amendment?</div><div><br></div><div>Please don't quote anything from the NRA or your favorite gun rights advocate.  I want to hear your opinions on the subject.  Here is the text of the Amendment:</div><div><br></div><div>"<span style="color: rgb(37, 37, 37); font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px;">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.</span>"</div><div><br></div><div>Some people quibble about the comma, some link the right to keep and bear arms to the well regulated militia.  Some say it means we can keep weapons to deter tyrants.  There are a lot of interpretations, I want to hear yours.  Do you feel it means weapon ownership should be absent any regulations?  Why or why not?  Do you think we can/should be able to own fully automatic weapons?  Explosive weapons?  Speak your mind and let's discuss!</div>

Response by MSgt Keith Hebert made Apr 14 at 2014 8:09 PM

MSgt Keith Hebert — Mon, 14 Apr 2014 20:09:51 -0400

Exactly what it says. We are citizens and have the right to bear arms. I firmly believe that if a gov. Believes it's people are well armed then the will second guess qbout trying something crazy and crooks will second guess about attacking if they think someone might have a weapon.
Now I do believe some regulation is needed, but not to the point that governments are saying you can only one so many mags or the type of gun(this does not include military grade weapons sys.)

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 14 at 2014 11:10 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 14 Apr 2014 23:10:54 -0400

<p>One thing I don't agree with about gun control is how they use a specific incident for example Sandy Hook to try to push new laws on the people.  Using the Sandy Hook for example to target assault weapons when the shooter didn't even use an assault weapon.  Additionally Connecticut already had more strict laws than what were recommended to combat shooting like this from happening.</p><p> </p>

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made May 19 at 2014 8:57 PM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 19 May 2014 20:57:35 -0400

I think it truly was intended, and still is today, to allow people to arm themselves in the event that they needed to fight an invader or their own government. Keeping in mind that the constitution was written by a government and by people who were tired of their governmental persecution and tyranny.
Further, I've heard the argument that "it won't happen in America". Nobody is immune from tyranny. Look through history and you will find even the greatest nations have had issues and such struggles.

SO, unarmed people cannot form a well regulated militia if they have no access to arms. What we see when a government wants to limit or do away with these rights, is EXACTLY why this amendment was written. Governments try to "policy" people into submission by attempting to control EVERYTHING and taking away people's ability to succeed or fail on their own.

On a side note and for example, our society has become so lackadaisical in responsibility that you can literally walk away from real life and still receive a paycheck and healthcare. What sort of incentive is there to succeed? In an effort to fund this, the government(s) demand more tax money...and people get mad.... and then they take more.... and the cycle repeats itself.

A system that commands dependents, stays in power.

Response by Cpl Ray Fernandez made May 19 at 2014 10:20 PM

Cpl Ray Fernandez — Mon, 19 May 2014 22:20:50 -0400

To understand the Second Amendment, I also look at the mindset and historical context that the Founding Fathers were working from. They had just won a war to gain freedom from what they felt was an oppressive monarchy. In my view they were afraid that someday some how things would go wrong and to allow people to protect themselves from not only the threats of the day since the country was pretty much a wild frontier in many areas, law enforcement wasn't an option they wanted the people to protect themselves, which also worked to keep the government honest since the people were back then at least as well armed as the government and probably outnumbered the government.

To use some of the quotes of Thomas Jefferson "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

This leads me to conclude that it was intended as the check and balance on the government by the people, because after all that they went through led them to be distrustful of government even as they were creating it.

Response by Cpl Benjamin Long made May 20 at 2014 12:24 PM

Cpl Benjamin Long — Tue, 20 May 2014 12:24:15 -0400

I interpret that second amendment in a literal sense... It says that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.... We can reasonably understand that "Arm" is short for armament(Merriam Webster, 2014) Thus, a right to bear arms would preclude that we also have the right to bear armaments. As well as "a : a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense; especially : firearm
b : a combat branch (as of an army)
c : an organized branch of national defense (as the navy)
2
plural
a : the hereditary heraldic devices of a family
b : heraldic devices adopted by a government
3
plural
a : active hostilities : warfare <a call to arms>
b : military service" (Merriam Webster, 2014)

As you can see the right to bear arms would be the right to bear any weapon for offense and defense in accordance with accepted definitions.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made May 20 at 2014 2:11 PM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Tue, 20 May 2014 14:11:37 -0400

I take the 2nd amendment at face value.

At the time, there was no large, standing Army. The ability to quickly call up a militia for defense was therefore crucial. Logistically it would be very difficult to call up that many people, get them trained, outfitted and armed, and utilize them in time to deter whatever threat justified the call up in the first place. So the amendment makes perfect sense to me. It's an efficient way to expedite the process of banding your militias.

Having said that, I believe the creation of the modern military has rendered it irrelevant. We have state Armies (the National Guards) and a fully formed federal Army (and Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard) ready at all times for our defense. The days of quickly having to assemble a militia are over.

Bear in mind, I am looking at this solely through a national defense stand point. I don't care about conspiracy theories, or Red Dawn masturbatory fantasies. I leave those to... better men.

Response by MSG Mitch Dowler made May 20 at 2014 11:35 PM

MSG Mitch Dowler — Tue, 20 May 2014 23:35:49 -0400

The second amendment is a basic civil right. It functions to allow for the God given right of self defense. It also functions as part of the check and balance system built into our Constitution. Title 10 of the United States Code provides for the militia that is not otherwise associated with the active duty, reserve, and national guard military. This militia is individual male Citizens acting as a check and balance against the government to keep it honest.

Once government starts attempting to restrict ownership of military service rifles then become very afraid that it is a government that lusts for power not granted to it by the Citizens it is was established to serve.

It was this Citizens militia that first fought the revolutionary war and it is this same Citizens militia standing by to restore the Constitutional form of government should it ever usurp unauthorized power to a point the Citizens no longer tolerate.

For the record Arms do indeed include any type of weapon or defense needed to prevent or subdue a tyrannical government, so they are not limited arbitrarily by administrations who fear the Citizens they were elected to serve.

Response by PO2 Rocky Kleeger made May 20 at 2014 11:47 PM

PO2 Rocky Kleeger — Tue, 20 May 2014 23:47:03 -0400

As I was given to understand, the 2nd Amendment was put in so that we, as Americans, could defend ourselves against anyone trying to take over. Remember when this was written.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made May 21 at 2014 2:59 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 21 May 2014 02:59:22 -0400

I'm a gun owner and supporter of the right to carry, but the problem with being a constitutional originalist when it comes to the 2nd amendment is that the founders had no way of predicting technology. These are people who held duels because the pistols were so inaccurate that rarely was anyone even hit. Hamilton was most likely killed on accident because Burr was trying to miss. There's a huge difference between a flint lock/unrifled musket with accuracy for a few hundred yards if you're lucky, and a 5.56 locked into a 30 rnd magazine. The "Boston Massacre" was called a "massacre" and only resulted in 5 deaths. There are nearly 2 dozen people killed by guns daily in the US.

Again - I'm a supporter of concealed carry laws, but I'm also not naive enough to be an originalist on something that is so dramatically different now than 200 years ago.

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made May 21 at 2014 3:54 AM

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 21 May 2014 03:54:39 -0400

Why not look at what the founding fathers had to say about the right to bear arms and get an idea of what they had in mind:

"A free people ought to be armed."
- George Washington

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson

"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 (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria)

"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

"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

"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense."
- John Adams

"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians."
- George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms."
- James Madison

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee

Should I keep going? Don't take my weapons. There is NO room for interpretation of this amendment. And it also doesn't say it should require background checks, limit the magazines, or any of that other crap.

Response by MAJ Jim Woods made May 21 at 2014 11:47 AM

MAJ Jim Woods — Wed, 21 May 2014 11:47:15 -0400

Fortunately I live in a State that has taken the Constitution and has passed legislation that declares the County Sheriff is the supreme law enforcement official and mandates that they arrest any person working for a federal agency that attempts to enforce any rules or policies that run counter to the 2nd Amendment. As a retired Law Enforcement Officer, I can, and do carry everywhere.

I totally agree with Maj. Carl B. Heller Rules!

Response by SFC Cornelius Walsh made May 24 at 2014 2:04 PM

SFC Cornelius Walsh — Sat, 24 May 2014 14:04:26 -0400

It means to me that we are entitled to own the current infantry small arms of the day in order to protect our life, our liberty, and to ensure our ability to pursue happiness.

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made May 25 at 2014 2:22 PM

MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca — Sun, 25 May 2014 14:22:40 -0400

Lots of great discussion here, my hats off to everyone. I'm not a huge fan of the "right to bear arms" as it applies to the average citizen, based on this thought process: When in uniform, we trained professionals can't access our government issue small arms on a moments notice due to all the regs that govern said weapons. These are the very weapons that we use to defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic. We are barred from carrying personal weapons when in uniform (a rising debate in light of recent incidents), especially in combat. Take off the uniform and that becomes the great equalizer. We're on the same playing field with those who abuse the right and show little to no responsibility that having that right entails. We're trained in ROE, use of force and restraint. Where are the ROE on Main street? Just MHO.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made May 27 at 2014 3:21 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 27 May 2014 15:21:58 -0400

How I read it: A well armed population being necessary to prevent intrusive oppressive government, the right of the people to own and carry arms shall not be infringed.

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made May 28 at 2014 9:35 AM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 28 May 2014 09:35:12 -0400

I already commented, but I want to add one more thing for consideration. The 2nd Amendment has been under the microscope a little more than usual recently because of certain, largely media publicized and/or violent events.

Something to keep in mind is that doing away with the 2nd, or a right to bear arms, will NOT disarm the criminals who commit 99.9% of gun crime and won't stop people from conducting mass killings.

Unless you are in a gang, selling drugs, or near either one of those, you are likely NOT to become a victim of it. Watch your 6. Protect your house and surroundings. Bad guys like soft targets.

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made May 28 at 2014 12:04 PM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 28 May 2014 12:04:33 -0400

Could someone explain to me how a background check is an infringement on your right to bear arms? If you're not adjudicated mentally unstable, and if you're not a felon, the background check comes back positive, and you get your gun purchase.

Proper reform of the mental health system, and proper reform of the laws regarding mental health, would allow for reporting to the NICS for those that are a danger to themselves or others.

If you get your gun, then you're not suffering from an infringement on your rights.

The right to life is worth more than any other right, in my not so humble opinion, and I am a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment. There's got to be balance, though. We have to be able to keep deadly weapons out of the hands of the mentally unstable and violent felons, while not taking them away from law-abiding citizens. Both are equally important.

Response by Cpl Christopher Allen-Shinn made May 28 at 2014 12:07 PM

Cpl Christopher Allen-Shinn — Wed, 28 May 2014 12:07:56 -0400

As a historian, I have to point out that 18th-century militias are as obsolete as 18th-century clothing. The only vague remnant of the old militias that remain in service are the Air & Army National Guard, which serve both their home states and the federal government. However, the Guard has become nearly indistinguishable from the reserves with regard to how it performs federal service, including combat deployments post-9/11. These are not the militias warned by Paul Revere that the "Redcoats" were on the march. Indeed, those wing-nuts that presently call themselves "militiamen" are essentially potential domestic terrorists; they are the threat, not the providers of security to any U.S. state.

America developed as a frontier nation, and the Second Amendment reflects the fact that keeping and using firearms was commonplace on the frontier. But we've now settled our frontiers, with the exception of Alaska. So, that leaves us with hunting & personal protection.

Although it's not in the First Amendment, I have no problem with law-abiding citizens using bows, bolt-action or semiautomatic rifles, shotguns, or pistols to hunt. I also have no objection to ownership of a pistol or two for personal protection, again by non-felons. I support reasonable regulations on firearms use & ownership designed to promote public safety and think that the gun lobby (NRA, et al.) does not advance its long-term interests (or, more importantly, the public good) when it opposes such legislation.

A final comment: while I support laws to keep guns out of the hands of convicted felons, I am very skeptical of regulations regarding mental illness and gun ownership. How many veterans with PTS could be banned unnecessarily once labeled "crazy?" Mental illness is extraordinarily complex, and just like other illnesses, is thankfully not usually permanent. An individual who is an active threat to himself or others should obviously not have access to a weapon, but they should just as obviously not be on the street. If they are in crisis, they should be somewhere that will provide them with the help that they need to recover.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 29 at 2014 3:53 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 29 May 2014 15:53:16 -0400

Quibble or not, both halves of the one-liner are integral to the meaning that I interpret it as and that takes a small amount of explanation, please bear with me.

First, let's separate the two statements broken up and put in a reverse manner:

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..."

For the term 'regulated' I am defining it as the ability to keep up with modern challenges.

For the term 'militia' I am defining it as a group of citizens banded together under the cause for common defense against an enemy, such as was the case at the dawning of our nation.

Bearing arms by the citizenry, when looked at in such a fashion, is undeniably appreciated and encouraged in a manner to maintain the security of the free state.

The simplicity of the sentence lends itself to adapt to the present and future times as well in my humble opinion.

How can a militia be up to the task of securing/maintaining a state of freedom if, in modern terms, it cannot provide superior firepower to repel attacks from an enemy such as the world's recognized best in the days of the writing of the Constitution?

Simply, if your neighbors across the border have fully automatic weapons plus other weapons with unkind abilities to produce a massive amount of casualties in short order, how can our people defend with pea shooters and dirt clods?

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made May 30 at 2014 3:29 AM

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 30 May 2014 03:29:08 -0400

Shall Not Be Infringed.

Next question.

Response by CW2 Joseph Evans made May 30 at 2014 9:24 PM

CW2 Joseph Evans — Fri, 30 May 2014 21:24:01 -0400

I interpret it as a mandate for all able bodied citizens of sound mind, to own, maintain and drill with their arms of choice... That in the event of tyranny, injustice or invasion, the people can rise up in defense of the people of this great nation...

Response by SSG Jeffrey Spencer made May 30 at 2014 9:40 PM

SSG Jeffrey Spencer — Fri, 30 May 2014 21:40:25 -0400

There is no 'interpretation.' It is written as any person can understand, and it should be followed as such.

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made May 30 at 2014 9:42 PM

PO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 30 May 2014 21:42:16 -0400

I don't see what is wrong with the regulation of what guns we can have. If a citizen is allowed to have a pistol or shotgun, why would they want/need a semi-automatic or automatic rifle?

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 31 at 2014 7:53 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 31 May 2014 07:53:10 -0400

I think that the right to keep and bear arms is essential to keep our other rights. If we lose that right, we have no way to guarantee we keep the others. It was put in place to protect us from our own government should it decide it wants to become tyrannical. Remember that at the time it was written, all weapons were military style. To limit one type of weapon based on looks is irrational. Limiting the type of weapons we are allowed to bear to something far less the what the government has effectively limits our ability to resist a tyrannical government. I'm not saying that our government will ever be tyrannical. It is a way to keep our government "for the people" and not "against the people". Lets hope we never have to use our right that way but that's what I think it was written for.

With all that said, I believe that being denied the right because you're crazy is a touchy subject. If you are the only sane person in a room of crazy people, by definition, you're the crazy one. Who gets to decide who is crazy or not and for what reasons would that judgment be given? It is a slippery road when you say that someone can't keep or bear arms because they are crazy. It only takes someone to say that if a person is crazy because of one thing, than we can say they are crazy for an unrelated thing. Next thing you know, people are crazy for stupid things like walking or talking different. That doesn't make them crazy, just different. The judgment should not be given lightly.

If the person committed a crime with a weapon then YES, by all means deny them the right. They have proven that they're not responsible enough to have it. We are innocent until proven guilty and thus should have the right until proven that we shouldn't have it.

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 4 at 2014 8:17 PM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 04 Jun 2014 20:17:18 -0400

The 2nd bears the right to own and carry arms to all Americans, not limited to the protection of self and property. This is from both crime and attack from both foreign and within. All the good quotes have been stated in other posts and forums, but there are many states and cities that still regulate who, when and what may be carried. The founding fathers didn't say you can only carry when a police force says you can (Hawaii) or that you must keep the ammo in one area and gun with lock in another (Illinois). But I do believe that there are instances where a level of common sense should be utilized, in court, religious buildings. But to limit who can legally carry to me does violate our rights to protect ourselves.

As some of the gun controllers say, just don't go where it is dangerous, it is dangerous everywhere and criminals, politicians and governments will prey on those that are unable to defend themselves.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 15 at 2014 10:43 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 15 Jun 2014 22:43:40 -0400

This is how my Criminal Law professor broke it down:
A well regulated Militia- The National Guard

being necessary to the security of a free State- State being a territory (State of NJ)States have their own Sovereignty

the right of the people -those members of the Militia(NG)

to keep and bear arms- have weapons

shall not be infringed- regulated by law

Now this was when I was 19 yrs old, and didn't know how to counter attack this. Now fast forward 13 yrs with a little experience and philosophy. I said a little,

I think that when our forefathers wrote this their thought was:

A well regulated militia (a group of people who are not part of the armed forces of a country but are trained like soldiers; the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service )

being necessary to the security of a free State-(a way of living or existing) the territory;

the right of the people- considering the definition of "militia" and people (the body of enfranchised citizens of a state ) EVERYONE

shall not be infringed- to wrongly limit or restrict (something, such as another person's rights)

Consider the Civil War, the South wanted to pull from the Union, If another State such as Pennsylvania attacked New Jersey, would it not benefit us if someone had a belt fed machine gun or fully automatic weapon?

Lets look at Switzerland, why have the been able to remain Neutral all these years? I have seen some interesting documentaries that state there is a rifle for every able male in every single house hold, therefore in the beginning of Hitler's Reich, this would have been too much of a resistance for him too soon. Also they have shown farmers who maintain artillery pieces sighted in on predetermined positions....Artillery pieces! and yet I cant have a collapsible stock on my AR! The Swiss also have underground bunkers and hospitals. They are the definition of "Si Vis Pacem Para Bellum"

How about Iraq, we occupied the country and they were allowed to have a legit "assault weapon" but we the United States, are not?

And lets not forget most of all....No matter how many laws you pass or how many weapons you ban or restrict, Criminals will still get what they want because criminals do not obey the law.

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 16 at 2014 4:03 PM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 16 Jun 2014 16:03:08 -0400

I believe strongly that whatever the government has with maybe exception of say missiles/ warheads there should be no NFA class of weapons. Before 1935 you could mail order a machine gun. Now we are taxed so much and here in Virgina the ranges in general suck with only allowing paper not reusable targets. I shot in Competition for years and Steel can do well. We have allowed are rights to be trampled all over and infringed to the point where we could not deter tyranny or have a fighting chance if we had to with such strict laws for the law abiding. My biggest thing is if a criminal can smuggle it illegally then why should I only be handicapped? The criminals are winning with every infringement and people that work and are honest are being kill off because ATF only hurts the goods guys. Take the raid in San Diego, on Ares Armor, some people like myself enjoy making are own stuff and not have to do paperwork. But legislation is coming where it may soon be a felony. At what point has the right ceased to exist? When is it ever going to be enough or gone to far? I think we should be able to own armor piercing rounds, no restrictions on small arms ammo, body armor or whatever else this is the real world and these days a bad guy may not just have a 9mm he may have an ak 47 on fully automatic, do you want to try it with a cap and ball revolver? In some states you can no legally carry pistols except black powder in the city? Have you ever shot a cap and ball? It may go off 5 out of six times in a six shot on a good day. caps fail, nipples break etc. More laws like this causes more deaths. Tell me when a cop is ever going to be next to you to safe your life? We are responsible alone for our safety. An Uzi may not be best but it could give you fire power to level the playing field against criminals. Tyranny s ever more real every day as legislators vote to take away every right we have. Hitler did the same thing all legally. Just because something is legal does not make it right. Cops can legally carry and most i have met can not hit the broadside of a barn and hate guns. By the way I am the sole bread winner in my family and struggle to find work, part time is all i have found in over a year. Jobs fold and cut back, i can not afford tax stamps when the price alone is all i may have to afford for my own security.

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Jun 16 at 2014 5:02 PM

LTC Paul Labrador — Mon, 16 Jun 2014 17:02:00 -0400

I see it as a reaffirmation that the people have the right to have weapons to defend themselves indiviudally, and to defend the community/nation collectively (and unbeknownst to most folks, Title X states that all able bodied males who are not currently in uniform belong to the unorganized milita).

Response by MSG Floyd Williams made Jun 17 at 2014 1:32 AM

MSG Floyd Williams — Tue, 17 Jun 2014 01:32:37 -0400

CWO2....A lot of people abusing the 2nd Amendment for their own personal gain, as you can see in our country gun violence is at a all time high. I tell non-veterans all the time that one thing for sure the military teaches the importance of handling, maintain, using a weapon. I'm thankful today for my training especially spending time in the Infantry, real weapons isn't no toy to play around with once the trigger is squeeze you can't retract that round, many people fail to think about these things.

Response by SGT Eric Lorenz made Jun 17 at 2014 9:00 AM

SGT Eric Lorenz — Tue, 17 Jun 2014 09:00:20 -0400

My understanding is that the Bill of Rights applies to citizens, not the government. That being the case "A well regulated militia" has nothing to do with the military which is very much a part of the government.

Response by LCpl Mark Lefler made Mar 20 at 2015 12:55 PM

LCpl Mark Lefler — Fri, 20 Mar 2015 12:55:25 -0400

I want to carry a battleaxe in public.

Response by SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA made Mar 20 at 2015 1:20 PM

SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA — Fri, 20 Mar 2015 13:20:03 -0400

CW2 Jonathan Kantor, this.

Response by SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA made Mar 20 at 2015 1:48 PM

SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA — Fri, 20 Mar 2015 13:48:37 -0400

CW2 Jonathan Kantor, here is an accurate diagram of the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment is one of five places in the Constitution that mention the Constitutional Militia. It is also mentioned briefly in the Fifth Amendment, as well as Article I, Section 8, Clause 15, Article I, Section 8, Clause 16, and Article II, Section 2, Clause 1.

The Militia is by far the most neglected and misunderstood institution of our Republic, even though it is the only thing said in the Constitution to be necessary for anything.

Words in laws always mean what they meant when the law was made law, and when the Constitution was written and ratified, Militia had been understood under State and Colonial statutes to mean an institution involving a *duty* of the people to keep and bear arms. Typically, each male between the ages of 16 and 60 was required to keep a good rifle, a certain amount of ammunition and other accoutrements of warfare in good condition, and to muster for Militia training periodically. This is what was being described with the phrase "well-regulated."

However, the right to keep and bear arms is not dependent on Militia service or enrollment, or even the fulfillment of Constitutional duties regarding the Militia on the part of Congress and State officials.

Response by BG David Fleming III made Mar 21 at 2015 11:59 AM

BG David Fleming III — Sat, 21 Mar 2015 11:59:43 -0400

The founding fathers felt so strongly about a citizens right to bear arms, they took up the issue "Second", only behind the right to speak! My interpretation means little to those who have given the ultimate sacrifice defending my right to bear arms. Their sacrifice was not in vain and I continue to bear it proudly!

Response by GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad made Mar 28 at 2015 4:31 PM

GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad — Sat, 28 Mar 2015 16:31:42 -0400

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/republican-presidential-hopefuls-sticking-to-their-guns/2015/03/28/b2ef4a1c-d3c4-11e4-8fce-3941fc548f1c_story.html?tid=HP_more?tid=HP_more

In the hunt to be the 2016 GOP pick, top contenders agree on 1 thing: Guns

The near-unanimity in supporting the Second Amendment — even among candidates who don’t own firearms — underscores the importance of guns in modern-day conservatism.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 18 at 2015 10:45 AM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 18 Jun 2015 10:45:42 -0400

This part of the sentence says it all. "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." IF you look at the Amendment line for line and word for word, the conclusion is simple.

Militias can be looked at as either State Funded Militias or the National Guard and Reserve Forces. It could also mean that it is each of our Obligation to defend our nation through owning our own firearms and wanting to whip our enemies ass.

However, I look at the Second Amendment as my Right to Responsibly own firearms and ensure I keep them safe and out of the hands of douche bags, politicians, criminals, my wife, and Joe Biden.

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made Jun 18 at 2015 11:37 AM

CAPT Kevin B. — Thu, 18 Jun 2015 11:37:02 -0400

We're somewhat alone when it comes to arms which makes it a hot topic as a country. There are countries out there that think we're nuts having this 2nd Amendment thing. I referee soccer in Europe every summer and get asked many questions and hear about their contrived stereotypes about American Cowboys. Then there are a few countries that promote ownership like the Swiss.

So we have "No" countries, "Yes" countries, and we seem to be the "Smoke 'em if you got 'em" which defies logic to outsiders.. It's a right but you are not required to exercise it. Same goes for speech and religion.

We see a lot of the "framers said this". Yes they did say it but in context with their times which was white gentry landowners are the only ones who can vote. Things have changed since then. We struggle with these questions because there is no clear answer that would work for most everyone. There won't be one. So if you're a Constitutional purist, then you have to realize you're working against gravity and have to work at not losing more and work harder to regain what has been lost. With the uberliberal gun control media, it becomes harder.

That said, I wonder if things are headed the right direction with more carry friendly states. And how about that national carry idea? You'd never see that 20 years ago.

Response by 1LT Aaron Barr made Jun 30 at 2015 10:23 AM

1LT Aaron Barr — Tue, 30 Jun 2015 10:23:57 -0400

I believe that to properly understand the 2nd Amendment, one must first understand the context of the Natural Rights philosophy on which this nation was established and which is concisely stated in the 2nd paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. Our Natural Rights precede government whose role it is to protect them. Amongst those rights MUST be self-defense or all other rights are rendered nothing more than polite suggestions to be ignored by anybody who feels strong enough to violate them.

When viewed in this context, the 2nd Amendment serves to protect the pre-existing right to self-defense by barring the government from interfering in its exercise. To wit, I believe that there is an absolute individual right to keep and bear arms used for defensive purposes such as handguns, shotguns and rifles. Weapons that don't have such a purpose or are so indiscriminate as to pose a severe risk to innocent bystanders, such as grenades, artillery etc. should be more strictly regulated and are.

Response by GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad made Aug 26 at 2015 3:53 AM

GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad — Wed, 26 Aug 2015 03:53:08 -0400

The 2nd Amendment also covers people in the U.S. illegally ...

People living in the United States illegally have a constitutional right to bear arms but are still barred from doing so by a separate law, a federal appeals court ruled.

The three-judge panel of the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued its ruling Thursday in a case involving Mariano Meza-Rodriguez. His family brought him to the United States from Mexico illegally when he was four or five years old, according to the 7th Circuit ruling. Now an adult, he was arrested in 2013 after a bar fight in Milwaukee. Police found a .22-caliber bullet in his shorts pocket.

Federal law prohibits people in the country illegally from possessing guns or ammunition. Meza-Rodriguez argued that the charges should be dismissed because the law infringes on his Second Amendment right to bear arms. U.S. District Judge Rudolph Randa rejected that contention on the broad grounds that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to people in the country illegally. Meza-Rodriguez was ultimately convicted of a felony and deported.

The 7th Circuit panel, however, ruled unanimously Thursday that the term "the people" in the Second Amendment's guarantee that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed also applies to those in the country illegally. The ruling, which applies in Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin, conflicts with opinions from three other federal appellate courts in recent years that found the Second Amendment doesn't apply to people in the country illegally.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/court-second-amendment-also-covers-those-in-us-illegally/ar-BBm5Bx1?li=AA54ur

Court: Second Amendment also covers those in US illegally

MADISON, Wis. — People living in the United States illegally have a constitutional right to bear arms but are still barred from doing so by a separate law, a federal appeals court ruled.The three-judge panel of the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued its ruling Thursday in a case involving Mariano Meza-Rodriguez. His family brought him to the United States from Mexico illegally when he was four or five years old, according to the 7th...

Response by SrA Jonathan Carbonaro made Oct 14 at 2015 10:38 AM

SrA Jonathan Carbonaro — Wed, 14 Oct 2015 10:38:35 -0400

I interpret it as Citizens of this country can have whatever kind of weapon they want. However the line that must be drawn is how much is to much. Tanks, Rockets, Mortars, Bombs, Grenades etc are things I wouldn't include as being protected by the second.
The Militia is the people all of them. Historically speaking if hostiles attacked your settlement everyone grabbed a gun and defended the settlement. That was the Founders True intent.

Response by 1stSgt Eugene Harless made Dec 30 at 2015 1:28 AM

1stSgt Eugene Harless — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 01:28:09 -0500

The core argument of those who argue against private ownership of weapons is that the 2nd ammendment was meant for "a well regulated militia". In their opinion, if you aren't a policeman or a member of the Military (Guard or reserve,,, with your weapon in an armory) you don't have a right to own a firearm.
In my opinion the Militia of that time was completely different than what we consider militia of today. A militia was any group of citizens who responded to an emergency, be it attacks by natives, foriegn military or criminals.
Two perfect examples of a group of citizens acting as militia with ad-hoc organization were incidents involving criminals. The first was the raid/robbery attempt in 1876 in Northfield Minnesota where armed Citizens killed or wounded 5 members of the Jesse James/Cole Younger Gang.
The second was in the 1992 LA riots when Shop Owners banded together to protect their property from looters.
A "well regulated Militia" is nother more than one or more law abiding citizens with a firearm, in my opinion.

Response by MAJ John Adams made Jun 30 at 2016 2:20 PM

MAJ John Adams — Thu, 30 Jun 2016 14:20:25 -0400

First, thank you for using the text of the amendment as it was originally passed. All the commas that usually appear were added later, as was the capitalization of the word "State". I believe that the second amendment says:

1. A functional militia is necessary to the security of a free state. That means that a state that is FREE has need of a militia. The militia is the sum total of armed civilians, and yes many of them would be worse than useless in a fight. So were most of the Continental militia, but they kept showing up to the party, and the survivors got better. The same would happen now in any protracted fight between militia (that's not the Reserve or National Guard) against regulars (and that should include the Reserve and National Guard in this usage.)
Since the Federal government was given the sole power to make and declare war, it was obvious that there would be at least a small standing army. The States would also have their own armed forces -- that was just how things were at the time, and nobody saw any issue with that. These organized forces were not and never have been part of the militia.

2. The people, and that's everyone -- although mentally incompetent and children would have been excepted at the time, as they should be now -- has the right to keep and carry arms of any sort. That right is not to be interfered with. I don't believe that this means that any and all regulations regarding gun ownership are wrong, but anything that says, either explicitly or by logical extension, that you need government permission to own and use a gun (or any other weapon) is unconstitutional on its face. And therefore null and void.
I'm aware that the 18th century view would have also excluded women, chattel slaves, and possibly even unpropertied men from any sort of militia service, but those were contemporary beliefs that have changed. The wording of the second amendment has nothing that would necessarily exclude any of these groups.