7
7
0
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>
2nd Amendment
Weapons
Firearms and Guns
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 41
0
0
0
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.
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.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
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.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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!
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
1LT Aaron Barr
Actually, it's just the opposite. Our Natural Rights, referred to in the Declaration of Independence as 'inalienable rights', precede government and men establish governments for their protection. The fundamental Natural Rights, as defined by John Locke whom the Founders plagiarized, are Life, Liberty and Property. They're fundamental because they apply even if you're totally alone. These, in turn, form the basis of other Natural Rights that apply when in the company of others to include Privacy, Trade, Movement, Association etc.
Our fundamental equality of rights forms their natural limit; since my rights do not, by nature, trump anybody else's nor do their rights trump mine, the limit of their exercise is that nobody may violate the rights of anybody else. However, it's well-understood that people will do this. Therefore, another Natural Right that precedes government is that of Self-Defense; if a person will threaten or apply force against another in violation of their rights, that person has an absolute right to respond in kind.
The Founders recognized this philosophy as well as the fact that the government is also the worst violator of the rights of its people. To wit, they crafted the Constitution to include democratic representation, division of power between the Federal government and the states and between the branches of the Federal government and a whole slew of others. In addition, they added the Bill of Rights which applies to the Federal government and reads like the Ten Commandments. Each one is a 'thou shalt not' aimed at the government. In this manner, the Constitution establishes LEGAL rights, at the highest level of law, to prevent the government from infringing on pre-existing NATURAL rights.
Our fundamental equality of rights forms their natural limit; since my rights do not, by nature, trump anybody else's nor do their rights trump mine, the limit of their exercise is that nobody may violate the rights of anybody else. However, it's well-understood that people will do this. Therefore, another Natural Right that precedes government is that of Self-Defense; if a person will threaten or apply force against another in violation of their rights, that person has an absolute right to respond in kind.
The Founders recognized this philosophy as well as the fact that the government is also the worst violator of the rights of its people. To wit, they crafted the Constitution to include democratic representation, division of power between the Federal government and the states and between the branches of the Federal government and a whole slew of others. In addition, they added the Bill of Rights which applies to the Federal government and reads like the Ten Commandments. Each one is a 'thou shalt not' aimed at the government. In this manner, the Constitution establishes LEGAL rights, at the highest level of law, to prevent the government from infringing on pre-existing NATURAL rights.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
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.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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?
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
There is no 'interpretation.' It is written as any person can understand, and it should be followed as such.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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?
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?
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca
I guess I come from a different school of thought. Yes there are terrible people out there who use weapons for the wrong reasons. But if we have a police force, I don't personally see a NEED to be armed & carrying. I don't oppose those who do, but I also don't see the NEED to be carrying an assault weapon - IMHO - anything over 10 rounds. I am well aware that anyone of us can come faced to face with an armed criminal at any time or be in a position when one's life and well being is in imminent danger and a police officer will not be right there. I feel that violence will beget more violence and me drawing in a bad situation could still get me or someone around me injured or worse. Same issue I have with carrying on post - another discussion here on RP.
The scenario that goes through my mind and why I mention ROE is this. I come across an individual drawn and shouting, are they the perpetrator or the suppressor? They fire, still can't see who or what they are firing at because I just dove for cover - Am I on the right or wrong side of the tracks? Will I get taken down because I'm carrying too? they turn towards my direction and see me, carrying and drawn, do I shoot first and ask questions later because I may be in imminent danger? do I have the training to asses the individual's intent and make that fatal decision?
I'm carrying and cross state lines? It's my responsibility to know the laws & regs there, am I on the right side of the law for carrying, does imminent danger apply here?
The scenario that goes through my mind and why I mention ROE is this. I come across an individual drawn and shouting, are they the perpetrator or the suppressor? They fire, still can't see who or what they are firing at because I just dove for cover - Am I on the right or wrong side of the tracks? Will I get taken down because I'm carrying too? they turn towards my direction and see me, carrying and drawn, do I shoot first and ask questions later because I may be in imminent danger? do I have the training to asses the individual's intent and make that fatal decision?
I'm carrying and cross state lines? It's my responsibility to know the laws & regs there, am I on the right side of the law for carrying, does imminent danger apply here?
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Sir, to be fair, the law enforcement officer that finds himself in the same scenario you just described is not any more prepared than you are to deal with that situation and likely faces the same questions. So why would it be advantageous to take no action and wait for a Policeman to arrive? That police officer is armed for his safety, not yours, so why is it reasonable that you aren't armed for the same reason. And if you are armed in that situation with a gun and a brain, (just like the cop), is it not reasonable for you to take action accordingly? I'm just saying it sounds as if bullets are flying in your scenario and you are in immediate potential danger. I'm not sure how doing nothing would be better in that situation than weighing your options while armed. I understand why you don't want to make a bad decision, but no decision is often worse. Whose to say you have to shoot anyone? There are many different options in your scenario. I can guarantee you one thing though, having a gun in your hand wont interfere with your ability to think outside the box. If you do nothing, well, bad things are already happening. And even worse, that guy could see you and mean you harm even without a gun. What happens when you decide you need to do something beyond a shadow of doubt, but you are ill equipped to do anything. Limiting your options doesn't limit risk, it magnifies it.
Also, I'm not sure "assault weapon" actually defines anything, but if you are referring to anything over ten rounds I believe I can justify all day every day. It is simple. I don't want to run out before the bad guy, and neither does anyone else. Having been in many firefights I can attest that bullets often become spent as quickly as adrenaline, and I have been shocked at how quickly I am looking for an opportunity to reload. With thirty round magazines. I currently carry 15 rounds (when I carry), and that makes me nervous. I cannot imagine being in a close quarters fight for the lives of myself and my family and being reliant on only ten opportunities to neutralize a threat. Hell I have hit my target more than 6 times before and the individual was still able bodied enough to kill me if he could. Imagine if I had missed all those shots and only have 4 left!
I don't carry because I believe I will save the day sometime or because I live in constant fear. I carry because it is my responsibility to make sure my family and myself are protected should the worst day happen. Frankly I find it inappropriate the idea of expecting a police officer (or anyone else) with his own family to place his life in harms way for me simply because I oppose being responsible for the task myself. Do I want the police to investigate crime and detain criminals who infringe on our liberty? Yes. Do I need the police to be there if an armed assailant decides he is going to make an attempt on my life or that of my family? No. And that is not their job. Contrarily, I would say that officer is actually less qualified than I am to be killed in defense of my loved ones.
The truth is, we actually make our community and each other safer by taking responsibility and refusing to be victims, without even squeezing a trigger. You just have to be willing to squeeze a trigger in order to take responsibility and refuse to be a victim.
Of course, these are just the ramblings of a neanderthal Infantryman and former LEO.
Also, I'm not sure "assault weapon" actually defines anything, but if you are referring to anything over ten rounds I believe I can justify all day every day. It is simple. I don't want to run out before the bad guy, and neither does anyone else. Having been in many firefights I can attest that bullets often become spent as quickly as adrenaline, and I have been shocked at how quickly I am looking for an opportunity to reload. With thirty round magazines. I currently carry 15 rounds (when I carry), and that makes me nervous. I cannot imagine being in a close quarters fight for the lives of myself and my family and being reliant on only ten opportunities to neutralize a threat. Hell I have hit my target more than 6 times before and the individual was still able bodied enough to kill me if he could. Imagine if I had missed all those shots and only have 4 left!
I don't carry because I believe I will save the day sometime or because I live in constant fear. I carry because it is my responsibility to make sure my family and myself are protected should the worst day happen. Frankly I find it inappropriate the idea of expecting a police officer (or anyone else) with his own family to place his life in harms way for me simply because I oppose being responsible for the task myself. Do I want the police to investigate crime and detain criminals who infringe on our liberty? Yes. Do I need the police to be there if an armed assailant decides he is going to make an attempt on my life or that of my family? No. And that is not their job. Contrarily, I would say that officer is actually less qualified than I am to be killed in defense of my loved ones.
The truth is, we actually make our community and each other safer by taking responsibility and refusing to be victims, without even squeezing a trigger. You just have to be willing to squeeze a trigger in order to take responsibility and refuse to be a victim.
Of course, these are just the ramblings of a neanderthal Infantryman and former LEO.
(2)
(0)
MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca
Thank you, SSG Allen! I have never met a "Neanderthal Infantryman" and I highly doubt you qualify after this, quite astounding essay. Like I said, I have different train of thought, as we all do, and I never considered the point of view, that you discuss. I think I always saw arming one's self as a risk as opposed to a responsibility. The scenario I discussed was my attempt to demonstrate my fear of what could happen. You are absolutely correct in that no one knows how a scenario can play out. I'm more a "commo puke" so it was very interesting to get color commentary on my scenario from someone more in the know.
I still feel that a police force is there to perform a similar function locally, to what armed forces do in a combat zone. You have a strong opinion on that and I do respect it. Your last paragraph, "the truth is...", is very intriguing and makes a very compelling statement. This gives me some very fulfilling food for thought. I greatly appreciate your input on this
I still feel that a police force is there to perform a similar function locally, to what armed forces do in a combat zone. You have a strong opinion on that and I do respect it. Your last paragraph, "the truth is...", is very intriguing and makes a very compelling statement. This gives me some very fulfilling food for thought. I greatly appreciate your input on this
(1)
(0)
MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca
I also wanted to add SSG Allen , that this entire discussion on the 2nd Amendment is a demonstration of the strength of RallyPoint. On Facebook, opposing opinions like this would lead to endless streams of profane inanity - been there on the giving and receiving end of a variety of topics - but here we mostly tend to behave as civilized adults because of our common bond.
(2)
(0)
0
-3
3
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.
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.
(0)
(3)
Cpl Christopher Allen-Shinn
MSgt Allan Folsom I make no claim to being smarter than any of our colleagues here on RP. I probably am better educated than most (based on US census data), but education merely hones one's abilities; it does NOT confer additional intelligence.
I found your analysis sound. To have the explicit right to bear arms and to serve in militias that could supplement the standing army were seen as foundational freedoms by many of the men that we revere as as America's Founding Fathers. Although this discussion of my comments has shifted focus to my opinions on present day militias (which seem to be more controversial than I expected), I agree that 18th-century militias were considered vital, and that firearms ownership was also important.
I support reasonable firearms ownership, which I define as semiautomatic or bolt-action rifles, shotguns, and pistols, owned for regulated hunting or personal protection purposes. I further support the implementation of background checks to prevent felons and the adjudicated mentally ill from gun ownership. Those are my personal opinions, and I realize that most of my fellow veterans are more libertarian in their interpretation of the Second Amendment, but one of the beauties of the USA is its guarantee of freedom of (political) expression, right?
I found your analysis sound. To have the explicit right to bear arms and to serve in militias that could supplement the standing army were seen as foundational freedoms by many of the men that we revere as as America's Founding Fathers. Although this discussion of my comments has shifted focus to my opinions on present day militias (which seem to be more controversial than I expected), I agree that 18th-century militias were considered vital, and that firearms ownership was also important.
I support reasonable firearms ownership, which I define as semiautomatic or bolt-action rifles, shotguns, and pistols, owned for regulated hunting or personal protection purposes. I further support the implementation of background checks to prevent felons and the adjudicated mentally ill from gun ownership. Those are my personal opinions, and I realize that most of my fellow veterans are more libertarian in their interpretation of the Second Amendment, but one of the beauties of the USA is its guarantee of freedom of (political) expression, right?
(0)
(0)
Cpl Benjamin Long
Cpl Christopher Allen-Shinn - you claim you are no better than any "Colleagues" here, but then you rant how you are more educated than most... that is the most self serving rant I have ever heard....
(1)
(0)
Cpl Christopher Allen-Shinn
SSG (Join to see) - No, Staff Sergeant, I trust myself, my loved ones & friends, brother & sister Marines, and the American system of government. I am aware of the imperfections in the system, but it seems worthy of my allegiance.
(0)
(1)
SSG (Join to see)
I will post again YOUR exact words, which is contrary to your most recent statement: "They are not perfect, but I put my faith in the government over militias". The militia IS the people. The militia IS every single able-bodied person, including every single Marine, Soldier, Sailor, and Airman. There is the militia OR the government. Your statement above, which you have NOT deemed to correct, puts your faith in the government over the people. Which is it? I put MY faith in God first, then the people. I do NOT trust the government one bit. And I dare say the majority on here, as well as in the United States, do not either trust the government.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
-
Ask questionGet expert advice and
tips for your questions. -
Post updatePost pictures, personal updates, plans, or anything you like!
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google 
