The Right to Bear Arms

[HRE]

The second amendment to the United States Constitution states:

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.

What does this mean to you? How to interpret it? What rights does it give?

Most importantly, in your opinion, what is the purpose of ensuring said rights?

 

[DaRkWoLf]

Did some one just hit my favorite topic...must ... not... rant...

It means alot to me, Im a competitive marksman (specifically tactical action and IDPA) despite my young age.

To me, the second ammendment gives the entire populace the right to keep, purchaise, and field arms. Although I dont believe in this being applicable to felons, the origional wording seems to allow it for everyone equally. I also believe that this means the populace should be able to possess any type of weapon and its accessories (automatics, short barreled rifles/shotguns, silencers (suppressors, nothing really "silences"), etc) without NFA paperwork, the 200$ tax per NFA regulated item, and a sherrifs office visit.

I believe that the ammentment was intended to give the populace a method to deal with the governemnt if it became tyranical or simply not in support of the vast majority of the peoples interest. I believe that this is a very valid reason.

Also, knowing a person may be packing is a great deturent to crime.

 

[Spinrad]

The second amendment to the United States Constitution states:



What does this mean to you? How to interpret it? What rights does it give?

Most importantly, in your opinion, what is the purpose of ensuring said rights?

It means people can keep weopons and use them without the government interfering. The purpose was irrelevant. It's a part of our history and part of our liberty.

Personally I think guns are for soldiers or wussies, but that has nothing to do with anything.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

The second amendment to the United States Constitution states:



What does this mean to you? How to interpret it? What rights does it give?

Most importantly, in your opinion, what is the purpose of ensuring said rights?

It means that I will remain free and able to defend against an enemy from within or from without.

 

[Voegelin]

"This country was founded by religious nuts with guns." --PJ O'Rourke

The election of 1994 seems to have been the end of serious threats to gun ownership in America. The drive sputters on here and there in some states but most new laws are DOA.

 

[Phred]

The second amendment to the United States Constitution states:

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.

What does this mean to you? How to interpret it? What rights does it give?

Most importantly, in your opinion, what is the purpose of ensuring said rights?

Part 1: A well-regulated militia. Important words. It doesn't say, "any whackjob who wants to have a gun". It doesn't say, "everyone should own a gun". It doesn't say, "you have the right to buy and sell weapons without any regulation". It clearly says, "a well-REGULATED militia". Regulated how? It doesn't say... so I assume by the governments of the states and by the federal government.

But what is a "militia"? militia (the entire body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service) "their troops were untrained militia"; "Congress shall have power to provide for calling forth the militia"--United States Constitution.

So a well-regulated (by the government) body of physically fit civilians may own guns.

Part 2: This militia is necessary to the security of a free state. Thus, a militia must and should exist.

Part 3: The right of the people to keep and bear arms. What people? Why, the militia of course.

Part 4: This right shall not be infringed. Don't subvert this, don't change it. Make certain the people who need arms have them.

Now, the confusing bits... at the time this was written, arms were muskets. Arms were single-shot pistols. But, to keep in context, these arms were meant for the defense of the nation. So should we in the militia be able to carry any arms we deem necessary for the security of the nation? Or any arms we deem fit for our own use, no matter what it is? The government can specify... remember, "well-regulated".

How can you not infringe upon a right and yet regulate it?



Anyway, to answer the last question, the purpose of granting this right was for the defense of the nation.

.
​

 

[Phred]

It means that I will remain free and able to defend against an enemy from within or from without.

If only I had any faith you could recognize an enemy... either within or without. Your definition of freedom and mine vary considerably. So what are you going to defend against? Seems to me that in 1776 you'd have been shooting at the guys who gave you this right. You know, <sneer when you say it> L I B E R A L S.

.
​

 

[blueapplepaste]

Also, knowing a person may be packing is a great deturent to crime.

All it means is that the criminal will make sure that they have a gun and that if needed they use it first. Guns don't deter crime; they add fuel to the fire.

 

[DaRkWoLf]

All it means is that the criminal will make sure that they have a gun and that if needed they use it first. Guns don't deter crime; they add fuel to the fire.

Its a pretty arguable topic, I give you that; yet I consider it a falacy from those who havent been there and done that. However, I have had numerous friends (over 30 for the most part, dont worry; not school kind of friends) experience where intruders entered their homes and they usually only had to present a weapon to scare em off. However, some of these older friends did indeed have to deal with armed criminals, lets just say my friends have been batting 1000 in that regard.

Theres also the whole self preservation bit. I from personal experience can vouch for that. Having the intruder in check and, for the most part, controling the situation makes life a whole bunch easier. We shant discuss that in my personal terms on this board. No one got hurt though

Overall, having a gun and knowing how to use it properly, safely, and effectively makes all the difference; and I suppose depending on the area, deturs crime.

Maybe its just because I dont let criminals determine the outcome of a situation without a fight...

Time to return to the OP.

 

[HRE]

The purpose was irrelevant. It's a part of our history and part of our liberty.

But why?

Let me alter my question slightly:

Why should we have the right guaranteed in the second ammendment?

Some fellows have done a nice job covering that side, but I want to hear more opinions.

There must be a purpose to law. We can's say that a law should exist because some nutty kooks who happened to be in charge decided it should. If we decide that the law has no purpose or has a negative purpose, it must go -- regardless of how old it is or who came up with it.

 

[Our Sacred Honor]

it means they can pry my gun for my cold dead fingers...(how hokey) saw it on a belt buckle my friend got from a rodeo haha

 

[ChrisLockhart]

Like a lot of items in the US constitution , it is to prevent the Federal government from becoming to powerful and controlling the people through fear. It is also in place to allow the citizens the ability (especially through local militias) to protect themselves and their communities from outside threats, and should the need arise, from our own government and leaders.

 

[Eudaimonist]

What does this mean to you? How to interpret it? What rights does it give?

You have the right, as a free citizen, to own firearms and use them in self-defense.

Most importantly, in your opinion, what is the purpose of ensuring said rights?

Defense against aggressors, including the government if it were to ever become tyrannical. All of the rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights are protections of the citizens from their government. The purpose of these rights is to help ensure that the government does not use its awesome power to abuse its citizenry.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Part 1: A well-regulated militia. Important words. It doesn't say, "any whackjob who wants to have a gun". It doesn't say, "everyone should own a gun". It doesn't say, "you have the right to buy and sell weapons without any regulation". It clearly says, "a well-REGULATED militia". Regulated how? It doesn't say... so I assume by the governments of the states and by the federal government.

Anti-gun zealots have been twisting the original intent of the Second Amendment for years. If you don't believe me, just study the original texts firsthand instead of relying on out of context quotes. Read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, and Constitutional Convention debates. I have!

 

[freealaska]

Right think:

"The ready availability of Condoms encourages kids to use them...that is unsafe.....

...But the ready availability of Firearms encourages safety"
​

​

 

[ChrisLockhart]

Well i agree that both of those statements are ridiculous, does not change my position on firearms, or condoms.. which would be ready availability of both, though I think a license to own a gun makes more sense then a license to own a condom.

 

[The Seeker]

Right think:

"The ready availability of Condoms encourages kids to use them...that is unsafe.....

...But the ready availability of Firearms encourages safety"
​

​

Come to think of it, gun ownership among parents encourages chastity among their children

 

[HRE]

Anti-gun zealots have been twisting the original intent of the Second Amendment for years. If you don't believe me, just study the original texts firsthand instead of relying on out of context quotes. Read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, and Constitutional Convention debates. I have!

What makes the original intent so altruistic? It is possible that the founding fathers were fallible, right? Then why the focus on what they said?

 

[Eudaimonist]

It is possible that the founding fathers were fallible, right? Then why the focus on what they said?

Of course they were fallible (I don't know of any infallible people), but I was specifically responding to the issue of interpretation of what they said and thought on the issue.

 

[Hungry Hungry Hippo]