What DID the second Amendment really mean?

AZ Jim

R.I.P. With Us In Spirit Only
I question the interpretation that allows "a well regulated militia" to mean any citizen who can pass a background check. How am I as a gun owner "well regulated"? I have never been asked to attend any drills of the "militia". I actually believe the REAL meaning was organizations within a state such as National Guard. Gun deaths from all caused in England are 0.23 per 100,000, in the United States 10.64 per 100k. That is bad enough but to make us look better take Honduras there the number is 64.80 per 100k. These number cover homicide, accident, and justifiable Homicide. It does not include suicide.

The only point I am trying to make is I do not believe the 2nd amendment means what it says, not what it has been defined as meaning.
 

Well regulated militia aside.. (although I personally agree... gun owners are NOT a militia... nor are they well regulated).... you can take the 2nd amendment to say the right to bear arms should not be impinged. However... It certainly does not mean ANY arms... even the supreme court weighed in on that as written by Justice Scalia

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapons whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority. But it did allow for individuals to have guns for lawful purposes, such as hunting and defending themselves, he said. The majority clearly saw the individual right to own a gun.

I think Scalia (who I normally don't ever agree with) had it RIGHT ON!
 

It was meant to make sure that the young nation could protect itself from foreign governments, not from its own, IMO...
 
I see the Second Amendment as being a product of its time, when there was no federal army in existence and the young nation relied heavily upon militias.

The problem is in the interpretation of the Amendment - both sides can see what they want in the briefly-worded missive.
 
I see the Second Amendment as being a product of its time, when there was no federal army in existence and the young nation relied heavily upon militias.

The problem is in the interpretation of the Amendment - both sides can see what they want in the briefly-worded missive.

Actually, and I have to research this, Way back... Militias were formed by the southern states to round up escaped slaves.. I am dimly recalling reading about that.. and that those were the "militia" being referred to in the 2nd amendment...
 
Actually, and I have to research this, Way back... Militias were formed by the southern states to round up escaped slaves.. I am dimly recalling reading about that.. and that those were the "militia" being referred to in the 2nd amendment...

Now how could that be true. The second amendment was around in the 1700's time frame and the southern slaves situation was in the mid 1800's. A bit of a disconnect it seems.

The Bill of Rights ( Amendments 1 - 10) was first posted in 1789 and ratified in 1791.

But I guess if a plantation owner paid some folks to go after any of his escaped slaves, that might be called a 'well regulated militia', I guess.
 
The founders created second amendment so the citizens of the New World could protect themselves from the government. This is also the same reason why the commander-in-chief is a citizen, this was to protect the nation's armies from being used on it's own people.
 
"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."

We already have a well regulated Militia. It is called the U.S. Armed Forces.

Clearly, this Amendment is totally out of date, is the source of endless violence and tragedy, and should be repealed.
 
"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."

We already have a well regulated Militia. It is called the U.S. Armed Forces.

Clearly, this Amendment is totally out of date, is the source of endless violence and tragedy, and should be repealed.


Yes, the world has changed a great deal since the late 1700's, when the 2nd Amendment was written. However, we have a good example of what can happen when a corrupted government decides to disarm its citizens. The German Weapons Act of 1938 placed severe limits on the ownership of weapons, and a revision, later that year, forbade Jews from possessing arms and ammunition. As a result, over 6 million Jews were led to slaughter.

Personally, I wouldn't trust any politicians, or government leaders, to place the needs of their citizens ahead of their own selfish goals. To say that such a thing could never happen here might be wishful thinking.
 
Sunny, we have the armed forces NOW, but they didn't have that back then. And, I'm not quite sure they qualify as a militia.

I also do not see how the Amendment is out of date, any more so than any other one. It's all in the interpretation.
 
Personally, I wouldn't trust any politicians, or government leaders, to place the needs of their citizens ahead of their own selfish goals. To say that such a thing could never happen here might be wishful thinking.

Exactly. There have been several possible scenarios I've read about the government turning against the people, ranging from flat-out war in the streets to another Holocaust.

Owning a firearm might not do much good, but if part of the military force turns sides it might be an interesting fight and one could go down fighting instead of becoming just another sheep.
 
The terms militia and people, as well as military, have been twisted and contorted innumerable times over the past several hundred years, to suit the "ends" sought by the writers. imp
 
I believe the Bill of Rights means what it says, and when it says "the people," it means the people, as in "We, the people . . . ." It was written not long after the Revolutionary War, and the fact that "the people" were armed went a long way toward winning that war.
 
I believe the Bill of Rights means what it says, and when it says "the people," it means the people, as in "We, the people . . . ." It was written not long after the Revolutionary War, and the fact that "the people" were armed went a long way toward winning that war.

The French Army didn't help just a little bit?

Long after the United States had won its hard-fought struggle for independence from Great Britain in 1783, you still would have found citizens throughout the world’s newest nation shouting, “Vive la France!”

With good reason, too, because the French wound up playing a key role in the Revolutionary War even though it cost them dearly. Looking to avenge its losses to Britain during the French and Indian War, France began secretly sending supplies to the upstart colonists as early as 1775. Then, after the Americans stunned everyone by capturing Gen. John Burgoyne’s army in late 1777, France started to think, “Sacre bleu! These guys could win!” Less than four months later, France recognized the United States as a sovereign nation, joined the war against Britain and began sending money, men and materiel to aid the American cause against France’s hated rival across the channel.

The effort would leave the French government with a mountain of debt on the eve of its own revolution, but it helped turn U.S. citizens into avid Francophiles. One way of showing their gratitude was to start adding the suffix of “ville” — the French word for “town” or “city” — to the names of new communities throughout much of the country for the better part of a century.

This sudden naming revolution is easily detected with even a cursory study of American history, according to the late George Rippey Stewart. In addition to his essential account of the last battle of Gettysburg (“Pickett’s Charge”), the University of California at Berkeley professor also was a noted toponymist — a person who studies the origins, meanings and use of place names (toponyms).

Before the revolution, names of towns did not usually use suffixes unless the settlement decided to name itself after an existing town in the Old World. When a suffix was used, “town” or “ton” was typically added, such as Charleston, S.C., which originally was known as Charles Town, and Trenton, N.J., founded by William Trent. By the 1750s, the suffixes “borough/boro” and “burgh” also became trendy.

But after the war, “ville” quickly became as popular here — especially in the South and Appalachian regions — as it had in France after 600 A.D. and, 400 years later, in England after the Norman conquest. A perfect example popped up already in 1780 when settlers in Kentucky founded Louisville, which not only has the “ville” but also was named to honor King Louis XVI of France. For the next 70 years or so, ville and burgh/burg became the favorites, although “burgh” usually was added to a personal name (e.g., Pittsburgh) while “ville” could be tacked on to most any word (hence, Belleville or “beautiful city”). By the 1850s, however, its popularity began to wane as newer suffixes became fashionable, including “wood,” “hurst” and “dale.”
 
Not only did France help us out in the effort to break away from the British, but they also gave us the Statue of Liberty in recognition of our Constitution. "We the people ---". No more of the hereditary leadership.
 
I believe the Bill of Rights means what it says, and when it says "the people," it means the people, as in "We, the people . . . ." It was written not long after the Revolutionary War, and the fact that "the people" were armed went a long way toward winning that war.

Yes... the 2nd amendment absolutely guarantees the right of people to bear arms.... however... the 2nd amendment says NOTHING about background checks... it says NOTHING about who can SELL arms... Therefore.. the executive orders just issued by the President has NOT infringed on the 2nd amendment one single little bit... The NRA is going to try to convince people otherwise... but is simply isn't true... The President is well within his authority..
 
But his authority is limited by not having the Congress take on this job and make it legal laws rather than just a Presidents opinion. Getting doctors to publish their private information on individuals will take government DEMANDS and not available with Presidential orders. Presidents can not make laws.
 
It says the "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," NOT the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The people is US.

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.

You dropped the first part (A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State)

It's very clear it's talking about people's gun right in a State run Militia.

But what the writers were trying to say, is not important. It's how the Supreme Court rules on it
.

Because of the Second Amendment's clear Ambiguity it can not guarantee people gun rights.
 


Back
Top