Confusion about the 2nd Amendment (accuse, soldiers, weapon, speech)

[Roboteer]

Originally Posted by rstevens62

The purpose of the 2A is not to ensure citizens have the right to own firearms...

Actually that's exactly its intent. And the PURPOSE of making sure they have that right, is so that they can use them to protect again Govt/tyranny when needed. It's the most important purpose of the 2nd.

Another important purpose is so they can defend against invasions and incursions from outside the country.

And another is so they can defend against common criminals inside the country.

Seems like many people on here believe its purpose is defense from criminals...(but that is not the purpose of the 2A).

Is there some reason you believe the 2nd amendment is only allowed to have one purpose?

[Annandale_Man]

Originally Posted by eddie gein

The second amendment has had so many interpretations through the years that it basically "means" whatever you want it to mean.

The Heller decision basically said it (2A) meant you could have guns for personal protection. Which of course is what the OP said it wasn't about.

Nobody has a clue about what the Founding Fathers "thought" about modern day weaponry because they never envisioned it from what I can tell...Is there any evidence that they even tried to do so?

We know we "have the right to bear arms"... but we have no clue about what the hell forming a "well regulated militia" means these days. If for no other reason, we have no idea who the founding fathers intended to "regulate" said militia.

Now. I expect a lot of word speak from hard core 2As who are going to try to explain a "well regulated militia"...and they will fail to do anything but confuse the issue further.

I much prefer that 2Aers who say go with that grammar interpretation. Something about how "the declarative phase is trumps the preparatory phase...and therefore the first part of the amendment doesn't count". I don't know how the founding fathers might of felt about that but I bet Grammar teachers everywhere are proud.

"Well regulated" means to make something regular. You can refer to the Militia Act authored by George Washington for the meaning. Members were to have a proper knapsack, keep their firearm in good working order, have a minimum amount of powder and ball, etc. You can't show up for drills with a broken gun and no ammo. The people had to provide their own equipment.

[Roboteer]

Originally Posted by eddie gein

The second amendment has had so many interpretations through the years that it basically "means" whatever you want it to mean.

No, it means what it says.

In modern language, "Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for freedom and security, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons cannot be taken away or restricted."

[godofthunder9010]

When it comes to the Bill of Rights, the Founding Fathers didn't exhaustively spell everything out. They assumed (incorrectly) that the intent of their wording would be obvious.

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.

Democrats can't even get that right. The founding fathers always envisioned the United States as a nation with minimal government with a very small standing army. If the nation needed to wage war, they believed that the USA would do what it did during the Revolution: Call up the militia.

So what did they see as a militia? In their opinion, it was composed of every able US citizen. As an American citizen, it was your duty to obtain, possess, maintain and bear arms. If the nation called up the militia, you would always be ready. Because this was the intent of the wording, if a person could buy a 100 canons or a warship or enough guns to arm a large town, it was all 100% fine. It'd be put to good use in the war.

The founders also did in fact also intend for citizens to be able to defend themselves and their property.

They most definitely DID explain exactly what they meant:

“A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined…” – George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

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

“I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

“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

Advertisement - story continues below

“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 John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

“On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

“I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence … I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” – Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

“To disarm the people…[i]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 Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

“I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.” – George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.” – Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.” – James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.” – James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

“…the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone…” – James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.” – William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… “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, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 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

“This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty…. The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.” – St. George Tucker, Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803

“The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like law, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one-half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves.” – Thomas Paine, “Thoughts on Defensive War” in Pennsylvania Magazine, July 1775

“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

“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.” – Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

“What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty …. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.” – Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789

“For it is a truth, which the experience of ages has attested, that the people are always most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 25, December 21, 1787

“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

“[i]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 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

[bluesjuke]

Originally Posted by eddie gein

The second amendment has had so many interpretations through the years that it basically "means" whatever you want it to mean.

The Heller decision basically said it (2A) meant you could have guns for personal protection. Which of course is what the OP said it wasn't about.

Nobody has a clue about what the Founding Fathers "thought" about modern day weaponry because they never envisioned it from what I can tell...Is there any evidence that they even tried to do so?

We know we "have the right to bear arms"... but we have no clue about what the hell forming a "well regulated militia" means these days. If for no other reason, we have no idea who the founding fathers intended to "regulate" said militia.

Now. I expect a lot of word speak from hard core 2As who are going to try to explain a "well regulated militia"...and they will fail to do anything but confuse the issue further.

I much prefer that 2Aers who say go with that grammar interpretation. Something about how "the declarative phase is trumps the preparatory phase...and therefore the first part of the amendment doesn't count". I don't know how the founding fathers might of felt about that but I bet Grammar teachers everywhere are proud.

Mis-unstanding it.

Well regulated was appropriately equipped and stay in practice, not to be regulated.
It means what is says at the time it was written which in itself is timeless.

[Mr.Retired]

Response: Opinion

Messing with the 2nd amendment is is the same as trying to walk on hot coals without getting burned.

[Ex New Yorker]

Originally Posted by godofthunder9010

When it comes to the Bill of Rights, the Founding Fathers didn't exhaustively spell everything out. They assumed (incorrectly) that the intent of their wording would be obvious.

Democrats can't even get that right. The founding fathers always envisioned the United States as a nation with minimal government with a very small standing army. If the nation needed to wage war, they believed that the USA would do what it did during the Revolution: Call up the militia.

So what did they see as a militia? In their opinion, it was composed of every able US citizen. As an American citizen, it was your duty to obtain, possess, maintain and bear arms. If the nation called up the militia, you would always be ready. Because this was the intent of the wording, if a person could buy a 100 canons or a warship or enough guns to arm a large town, it was all 100% fine. It'd be put to good use in the war.

The founders also did in fact also intend for citizens to be able to defend themselves and their property.

They most definitely DID explain exactly what they meant:

They sure as hell did. Thanks for posting that!!!

Unfortunately a lot of people are too damn lazy to read the written comments of the founders themselves. It's all in the Federalist Papers. Either that or they're too afraid of what they'll find as it contradicts all of their anti gun BS.

[spankys bbq]

Originally Posted by eddie gein

The second amendment has had so many interpretations through the years that it basically "means" whatever you want it to mean.

The Heller decision basically said it (2A) meant you could have guns for personal protection. Which of course is what the OP said it wasn't about.

Nobody has a clue about what the Founding Fathers "thought" about modern day weaponry because they never envisioned it from what I can tell...Is there any evidence that they even tried to do so?

We know we "have the right to bear arms"... but we have no clue about what the hell forming a "well regulated militia" means these days. If for no other reason, we have no idea who the founding fathers intended to "regulate" said militia.

Now. I expect a lot of word speak from hard core 2As who are going to try to explain a "well regulated militia"...and they will fail to do anything but confuse the issue further.

I much prefer that 2Aers who say go with that grammar interpretation. Something about how "the declarative phase is trumps the preparatory phase...and therefore the first part of the amendment doesn't count". I don't know how the founding fathers might of felt about that but I bet Grammar teachers everywhere are proud.

We absolutely DO know what the Founding Fathers meant. There are numerous writings that can spell it out for you, clear as day, should you choose to ignore your bias and actually read their writings.



The United States had just finished fighting a war against a tyrannical government. The lowly citizens were the ones who fought off this government. It stands to reason that the ability to speak freely would be followed up by the right to defend yourself from anyone wishing to strike you down for your words.



It would stand to reason that the right to not have soldiers quartered in your home, not have your papers and effects seized without cause, not be forced to incriminate yourself, and so on, would be protected by the SECOND right that was enshrined within our Bill of Rights. I think it is a fairly easy argument to make that the first and second amendments were put in that order for a very good reason. If you can come up with a compelling argument for why the first two rights were randomly placed in that order, I'm all ears. I'll give you an "A" for the effort but I'll still think you don't know your butt from a post hole digger when it comes to our history.



Our Bill of Rights was an intentionally-ordered remedy to the grievances of our Founders and the freedom-minded people of the time. It set a path forward for a free people, with a just governmental structure, made for a moral people. Morals are where we seem to have failed.



We have failed in respects to being desirous of freedom instead of safety. These days, people would gladly carry the weight of chains in the name of safety rather than shed that burden in the name of freedom. In the day of warning labels on everything, a dangerous freedom is far too scary for people who have never had to fight for it. The mere thought of man, set in his mind, that wishes to preserve the freedom our Forefathers fought for, is called a lunatic by those who happily wear those chains. They're called "insurgents", "gun nuts", etc. They're called these names by people who have neither the desire nor the guts, to lay down their life should the need arise.



Observe the large majority of the anti-gun groups out there. Most have never been in the military. Most can't trace their lineage to someone who fought in the Revolutionary War. These people have enjoyed the fruits of others' sacrifice but haven't a single drop of patriotic blood in their veins.



How dare anyone restrict the rights laid out in the First Amendment! How dare anyone restrict the rights of the 3rd, 4th, 5th, and so on. You fight for all of the rights, or you fight for none. You fight for the dangerous freedom or you complain in the pursuit of your own servitude. If push comes to shove, you'll be awful sad about your fervent defense of one right but your complete ignoring of the 2nd Amendment.



The average age of the world's greatest civilizations is 200 years. We're due for a shake-up. Do you want to be the one doing the shaking, or would you prefer to be the one being shaken?


tl;dr Don't be lazy. Read it.

[NJ Brazen_3133]

Originally Posted by rstevens62

Reading so many of these firearm threads, Im starting to notice that many people misunderstand the purpose of the 2nd Amendment altogether...


The purpose of the 2A is not to ensure citizens have the right to own firearms...the intent is the firearms are to be used to protect against the Govt/ tyranny.


Seems like many people on here believe its purpose is defense from criminals...(but that is not the purpose of the 2A).


The only people Ive seen that truly exercise their 2nd Amendment rights, are in prison! (for doing just that)

I am ok with not owning it, but at least allow there to be places I can borrow and shoot for practice. Or even let me keep some my home for emergency. I dont need to own. I just want to play with it.

[AKA Bubbleup]

The only reason the Government would want to remove guns from the populace is that they intend to do something you would shoot them for.