Posted on Oct 16, 2015
What is your understanding of the 2nd Amendment?
1.59K
18
21
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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." With that said you need to be a member of a Militia to have a right to bear arms.
Posted in these groups: 
2nd Amendment
Constitution
2nd Amendment Constitution
Posted 9 y ago
This is a duplicate discussion. Click below to see more on this topic.
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>
Responses: 7
1) There are NUMEROUS threads on this already.
2) There is a SCOTUS decision on this that says that the Right to bear arms is independent of membership of any militia (collective).
3) The militia is composed of every abled-bodied man, which makes this an Individual Right, which is Exercised Collectively, much like the Right to Assemble.
4) Reading the 2a using modern understanding of words will lead to misunderstanding of terms.
2) There is a SCOTUS decision on this that says that the Right to bear arms is independent of membership of any militia (collective).
3) The militia is composed of every abled-bodied man, which makes this an Individual Right, which is Exercised Collectively, much like the Right to Assemble.
4) Reading the 2a using modern understanding of words will lead to misunderstanding of terms.
show previous comments
PO3 Steven Sherrill
CPT L S - Actually no the line is not drawn. When the constitution was written, Mortars existed. Cannons existed. Grenades existed. All could have been excluded from the Second Amendment when the constitution was written. The Constitution was written when the English Colonies in America were fighting against tyranny. The rights we have guaranteed were meant as assurances that the freed colonies would be governed without the fear of that kind of tyranny returning. Therefore it was written in a manner that would allow the citizens of the new nation to take up arms against a tyrannical government should the need arise. They could not predict that the technology would advance such as it has.
PO3 Steven Sherrill
1LT Aaron Barr - When it comes to WMDs, I do not think that there is anyone on the planet who should be using these things. When the US dropped the bombs on Japan, we had no idea how long the effects of those bombs would last, or how wide spread the impact would actually be. People are becoming so self absorbed that the ability to care about the wide spread impact of these kinds of weapons is being whittled away. I fear that one day some little prick will actually launch just because their neighboring country exists and that will end it for everyone.
1LT Aaron Barr
PO3 Steven Sherrill - I'd generally agree but short of inventing a time machine and offing guys like Einstein, I don't see it as possible. The only way we'll ever get rid of nukes is if we somehow find a way to package anti-matter weapons or something as powerful more cheaply.
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
CPT L S I didn't say I wanted. I expressed opposition to your underlying premise. You attempted to use a "what next?" Argument, to which I countered with one of equal absurdity.
A restatement of the Second Amendment in the modern vernacular and of similar brevity:
In order to maintain defense of persons and property in the United States, such that when the people are called to the role of militia at least some portion of them need not require familiarization with modern arms, the right of individual citizens, the whole of whom comprise the militia, to acquire, possess, and train with modern arms, will not be interfered with by government.
In order to maintain defense of persons and property in the United States, such that when the people are called to the role of militia at least some portion of them need not require familiarization with modern arms, the right of individual citizens, the whole of whom comprise the militia, to acquire, possess, and train with modern arms, will not be interfered with by government.
1LT Aaron Barr
I respectfully submit that a better one is this; The Right of the Individual to Self-Defense being inalienable, the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed.
Staff you're walking on a very slippery slope using that definition of the 2A. That definition doesn't include the fact that I have the inherent right to defend myself.
1LT Aaron Barr
CPT (Servicemember) - Do yourself a favor and look up 10 U.S. CODE § 311. Therein, you will find the legal definition of the militia and, potentially, be enlightened as to just how wrong you are.
1LT Aaron Barr
CPT Servicemember - The down vote was on the basis of your obvious lack of comprehension of the 2nd Amendment as well as Heller and the legal definition of the militia I provided you. There's nothing wrong with the 2nd Amendment, just ignorance as it to it's intent. Read my response to this below.
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google