General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe exact wording from the 2nd Amendment. How do you define it?
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.
demtenjeep
(31,997 posts)to keep and bear arms
BlueJazz
(25,348 posts)moobu2
(4,822 posts)Chorophyll
(5,179 posts)the British Empire, having very little infrastructure and only muskets for protection.
In other words, obsolete and ready for a massive re-think.
demtenjeep
(31,997 posts)obsolete.
These were all responses of the oppressive actions of the king we were fighting to cut bonds with
Chorophyll
(5,179 posts)in the last few days. Thanks for being one of them.
RagAss
(13,832 posts)sarisataka
(18,674 posts)what is important is how SCOTUS defines it
demtenjeep
(31,997 posts)we had no true organized military at the time the "militia" was to protect the states after meetings to agree on how to proceede
sarisataka
(18,674 posts)SCOTUS was pretty much on with the idea of the 2A. Individuals have a right, though not unlimited, to keep and bear arms. The arms would be the typical individual weapon(s) of the infantry.
While I believe the militia clause is the subordinate, like every clause in the BOR there is a purpose. In this case I can see that while the arms are not regulated, the militia can be. As the militia is defined as all adult males (and presumably females, given the recognition of equality), the people can be regulated. To me it fits both the 18th century definition and the modern that those who bear arms can be required to be 'regulated' i.e. vetted in such fashion as to assure they are able to fulfill their militia duties if called. I have had a very recent change of heart as not many days ago I would have disputed the notion. Some good discussions here gave me a new angle to consider the letter and spirit of the 2A.
Reading some texts, I wonder why no one has questioned the Constitutionality of the army...
Loudly
(2,436 posts)States were being appeased with the implication that they could revoke the compact, throw off the Federal government, and secede from the Union.
It was a way of courting States so they would ratify the Constitution.
This, of course, was rendered quite entirely moot by the Civil War.
The Appomattox covenant is that armed rebellion is never legitimate in this country.
Modern claims of some right of access to convenient mass murder are therefore fraudulent. Spoken by liars and traitors.
Mel Content
(123 posts)it does not require active membership in a militia to own firearms. nor does it require the militia.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)"Because pizza is necessary for late-night study sessions, the right to grow and harvest tomatoes is protected." -- are tomatoes only used in tomato paste?
"I'm out of soda, I'm going to the store." -- Do stores only sell soda? Am I obligated to only buy soda?
moondust
(19,993 posts)you choose to believe it gives individuals the right to keep and bear unspecified/unlimited "arms" (artillery? really?) If that's what they were trying to constitutionally guarantee then there was no reason to mention anything about a "well-regulated militia."
The framers were not sociopaths guaranteeing murder and mayhem in their "more perfect union." IMO it's about ensuring the common defense in the absence of a standing army.
sanatanadharma
(3,707 posts)...not personal defense, but rather the needs of society is the sole reason for the 2nd amendment.
Today's society needs more "well regulated" security.
ComplimentarySwine
(515 posts)ecstatic
(32,712 posts)army. Of course, there's no way gun owners will accept a change of interpretation, at this point.
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)So I just do a big WTF about this whole gun thing.
ComplimentarySwine
(515 posts)ComplimentarySwine
(515 posts)The first 13 really only server as an explanation, but not as a restriction of the last 14. I imagine that if enough people don't like it, though, we can get it changed or repealed.
Zoeisright
(8,339 posts)join a militia and have to spend months training in it.
The Framers would be simply appalled if they knew about what happened with that Amendment.
demtenjeep
(31,997 posts)!
jody
(26,624 posts)Dems to Win
(2,161 posts)Children are expected to wear body armor in the park if they don't want to get shot, go to school in armed fortresses, and never ever go to a movie in a theater. Just because other people love to stockpile and shoot and sometimes lose and sometimes have stolen indescribably lethal weaponry. Sounds fair, right?
I've had enough. Repeal the Second Amendment Now.