The 2nd Amendment - What does it mean?

[Aaron Spicka]

-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.-
For the security of a free state sounds to me like the well being of a state is in danger in some way of surrendering its freedom. And I certainly can't seem to understand how a well regulated militia can be applied to separate individuals. Even in an effort to be in congruence with the society of today, how can this amendment be stretched so far?
If your so afriad for you or your families safety why do you need a gun to adiquatly defend your family. If one already can or could decide to just try to look at a burglary from a rational standpoint for once that person would hopefully see there are other ways to defend your family. A loud alarm system I think would scare the living crap out of a person trying to rob a house. And other weapons could be used if the intruder became hostile; there are so many things that could be used.
Oh but some paranoid person might say, "what if they'd have a gun, than I'll be totally helpless?" Come on, if someone comes in to your home with out making noise you probably screwed wether you have a firearm or not. And if the person does make a sound that alerts you, why the hell would you go in search of the potentially lethal robber to get in a confrontation trying to frighten them out?
I haven't passed the bar exam so I am not an expert on law. But this is just a fairly intelligent(common sense) 18 year old confused citizen looking for some other valid points of view other than my own. Thanks

[caspian88]

In modern English, the Second Amendment says:

A well-regulated militia (which is necessary to the security of a free nation), and the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

In other words, no militia may be declared illegal, and no weapon may be declared illegal to own. If I can find a way to get ahold of a nuke, the government can do nothing about it. However, commerce can be regulated to illegalize the sale of weapons. It shouldn't for anything less powerful than grenades, but it could.

The right to own weapons is essential to prevent some crazed dictator from ganing control of the nation and infringing upon certain rights. What can you do to fight back against an American Hitler or Mussolini if you have no guns with which to fight back?

Also, if you look at nations with high gun ownership, they will have a lower violent crime rate than a nation with greater gun control. Even in the US, areas with more guns have less violent crime - less murder, less rape, less burglary. In Britain, guns are illegal, totally - and Britain has a crime rate much higher than the US; Britons are the closest people personality-wise to Americans.

The Second Amendment is our most important Amendment - it is the one that safeguards our ability to defend ourselves against tyranny and defend ourselves from criminals. No law that infringes upon the right to bear arms is legitimate, and we have every right to fight against it.

[tinybear]

Are the crime rate figures based only on gun-related crime or all sorts of crime?

[The Dunedan]

OK,
First, a few clarifications. In the language of the late 18th Century, the term "Well regulated" means "in proper working order." It has nothing to do with "rules and regulations" as we understand the term today. The word is still used in this sense in certain trades; a "Regulated" clock is one which has been certified to keep accurate time, for instance.
The Founders were quite clear in their intention that "the whole of the People" should bear arms, in order to prevent not only petty crimes against themselves, but to prevent the rise of a tyrannical government. They even forbade the keeping of permanent, profession armies for this reason.
Lastly, the Militia Act defines the Militia as ( essentially ) all Persons capable of bearing arms in any military capacity. In 1798, when the Militia Act was passed, this meant all males between 17-45, and whatever females felt like it. Today it could be said to be just about anyone, because modern weapons technology makes it possible for almot anyone to be military serviceable.

If your so afriad for you or your families safety why do you need a gun to adiquatly defend your family.

Because only a firearm can reliably incapacitate an intruder or attacker from a safe distance.

A loud alarm system I think would scare the living crap out of a person trying to rob a house.

"Startle," perhaps. However, "Scare the crap out of" implies that burgalers are easily scared out of their chosen trade. Some are; some simply don't care. They'll grab what they can and run, and possibly be a danger to anyone who tries to stop them. Alarm systems are also problematic because they depend upon electrical power: a blown fuse or breaker, a bad storm, a tree branch...any one of these renders an alarm system totally useless. Additionally, an alarm system is supposed to alert someone to the problem. This works fine IF someone responds. Average response-time by the police in this country is in the neighborhood of 20 minutes; 20 minutes during which you can be murdered, your wife raped, and your posessions stolen.

And other weapons could be used if the intruder became hostile; there are so many things that could be used.

Such as? All weapons other than firearms suffer from serious limitations in range, effectiveness, and usefullness against multiple intruders. Most non-firearm defensive weapons require the user to be within less than two meters of their attacker; a distance at which the attacker may physically overpower them, which is an especially serious risk for women, the elderly, and the infirm. Only a firearm can reliably incapacitate multiple attackers from a safe distance. Any non-ranged, non-electric handweapon ( kubotans, sticks, baseball bats, etc ) require considerable strength to weild, thereby placing the weak at the direct mercy of the strong. Electric weapons like Tazers and stunguns suffer from a dependance on batteries ( which can go dead ), require very close range ( from 15' for Tazers to contact-range for stunguns ) and can be defeated by thick clothing. Pepper-spray is even sketchier; individuals under the influence of alchohol or certain drugs may not feel it or respond, and certain people can ( and have ) build up immunity to its' effects. Bottom line: none of these methods can be counted upon to work. However, no amount of FUBU parka or biker's leather is gonna stop a 220-grain .44 bullet, and nobody can build up immunity to it either.

fairly intelligent(common sense)

While I commend your search for the truth, you are sadly misinformed about the ability and utility of non-lethal/non-firearm weapons as tools of self-defense. If you'd like, I can PM you some more information. I blame the media for your misinformation in these regards. They have persuaded you that what is actually knee-jerk reactionism is in fact common sense; hardly a rare situation, sadly.

[The Dunedan]

In answer to your original question, the Second Amendment could be translated into modern English thussly;

A Militia in good order, being the best gaurantee of the continued existance of a Free State, the absolute right of The People to posess and carry weapons suitable for use in a military capacity shall not be infringed.

[a person]

Robbery isn't the only threat that the second amendment was trying to prevent, though it is improbable the government would suddebnly turn into a oppresseive police state, disaster situations can demand a military presence, and U.S. law does allow for martial law to be place upon areas where the gov feels it is nessecary, without the citizen's right to own weapons in that area, and their power to check the military, it is almost inevitable that the military will abuse their power. Basically people need a direct check on their government, and to be able to compete with their armed forces if their conventional checks (voting, lawsuits etc.) are taken, or given, away.

[G. Adams]

I don't see the need for a focus upon "a well regulated militia", as that is the justification, not the right itself. The right is "to keep and bear arms". Additionally, a militia a body of the people, not of the state, though a militia may choose to ally itself with the state. In which case, the argument that the national guard is a suitable body to represent this right, is flawed, as the national guard works for the state. In order for a militia to be raised by the people, the people need to be armed in peace-time, should a militia be required. Otherwise, by the time a militia is needed, the chances of getting access to arms will be very limited.

Personally I don't see the need for discussion on this. The most basic right of all human beings is to protect themselves, whether from personal harm from others or oppression by the state. All other rights flow from this right, because by exercise of arms, you secure all others. If you relinquish this right to a government, then all other rights are based upon governments self-restraint, which is a very poor guarantee of freedom.

[The Dunedan]

Personally I don't see the need for discussion on this. The most basic right of all human beings is to protect themselves, whether from personal harm from others or oppression by the state. All other rights flow from this right, because by exercise of arms, you secure all others. If you relinquish this right to a government, then all other rights are based upon governments self-restraint, which is a very poor guarantee of freedom.

Well said!

[tinybear]

It's a myth that the right to bear arms is a sufficient safeguard against tyrannical government. You mean that if the President turns into a despot tomorrow, you guys who are armed with rifles and handguns can stop him? I mean realistically, you mean that the right to bear arms by private citizens ensures that those citizens can stand up against perhaps the most powerful war machine the world has ever known? Come on.

Surely, the most important safeguard against tyranny in this country is its system of checks and balances and the values and education this country has given to its citizens for the past 200 odd years. In America, if we don't like our leaders, we can remove him every 4 years and our armed forces will defend this principle whoever happens to occupy the White House. That is our safeguard; not the right to bear arms.

[Sonart]

The 2nd Amendment means what the U.S. Supreme Court and 10 of the 11 Federal Circuits Courts of Appeals says it means...

...that you have the right to bear arms provided it's necessary for the maintenance of a well regulated militia, as defined by Article I Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.

Any other interpretation is wishful thinking.

Well said!

So, with the U.S. possessing among the highest crime rates, the highest murder rates, the highest rates of gun crimes, the highest per capita prison populations and certainly one of the most violent cultures in the civilized world, exactly how is the 2nd Amendment 'defending ourselves'?


.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: tinybear It's a myth that the right to bear arms is a sufficient safeguard against tyrannical government. You mean that if the President turns into a despot tomorrow, you guys who are armed with rifles and handguns can stop him? I mean realistically, you mean that the right to bear arms by private citizens ensures that those citizens can stand up against perhaps the most powerful war machine the world has ever known? Come on. Surely, the most important safeguard against tyranny in this country is its system of checks and balances and the values and education this country has given to its citizens for the past 200 odd years. In America, if we don't like our leaders, we can remove him every 4 years and our armed forces will defend this principle whoever happens to occupy the White House. That is our safeguard; not the right to bear arms.

There's never been a situation where a 2 million person army has gone up against a 100 million person militia.

It'd be interesting to see but simply the mass of people with firearms would overwhelm them.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: tinybear It's a myth that the right to bear arms is a sufficient safeguard against tyrannical government. You mean that if the President turns into a despot tomorrow, you guys who are armed with rifles and handguns can stop him? I mean realistically, you mean that the right to bear arms by private citizens ensures that those citizens can stand up against perhaps the most powerful war machine the world has ever known? Come on. Surely, the most important safeguard against tyranny in this country is its system of checks and balances and the values and education this country has given to its citizens for the past 200 odd years. In America, if we don't like our leaders, we can remove him every 4 years and our armed forces will defend this principle whoever happens to occupy the White House. That is our safeguard; not the right to bear arms.

Yes, I think it's possible. Firstly, it would not be pitched battles. It would be urban warfare, where the prime weaponry will always be small arms and explosives. There would also be tertiary guerrila attacks, against the electricity, water, phones, gas lines, trains, devestating the infrastructure. An army turned against a population will also likely face widepsread strikes, making it very difficult for the military to be supplied munitions. And any army turned against it's own people is going to suffer morale problems from the start, so you will see wide-scale drop outs, surrenders, switiching sides taking arms and good training with them.

The system of checks and balances only works if all the parties involved have conflicting interests, so there is a balance of interests. When a vast majority of individuals in power have converging interests, there is no organised opposition, there is a democratic deficit and an organised group can take advantage.

Unfortunately, the propaganda networks available to the rich and powerful make it possible for elections to be effectively hi-jacked. For example, a decorated Vietnam vet is made to look like a coward, and his opposition a war leader, when he's a glorified frat boy being pushed about by people more intelligent than him. How can a public decide who is best to lead when there is so much bullshit going around you don't know who is telling the truth?

Although many soldiers will defect in the event of a president turning despot, I don't think most will at first. The propaganda machine will spend a couple of years pushing how dangerous and unstable the country is, how radical militant groups (pro-democrats, not the party of course) are threatening the public good, and how only a firm grip on law and order can restore the country to greatness. The national guard will be brought out on a sparking incident, I'd guess in a poor area, probably black or latino. A riot will occur, the middle class will disgusted and start getting reactionary, supporting tougher and tougher measures.

May all sound conspiratorial, but I think it would be easy to get a despot into the White House, perhaps not now, but 20 years of fear propaganda and acceptance of restricted civil liberties, and I think it could be a risk.

[DoloresIbarruri]

Quote by: G. Adams I don't see the need for a focus upon "a well regulated militia", as that is the justification, not the right itself. The right is "to keep and bear arms". Additionally, a militia a body of the people, not of the state, though a militia may choose to ally itself with the state. In which case, the argument that the national guard is a suitable body to represent this right, is flawed, as the national guard works for the state. In order for a militia to be raised by the people, the people need to be armed in peace-time, should a militia be required. Otherwise, by the time a militia is needed, the chances of getting access to arms will be very limited. Personally I don't see the need for discussion on this. The most basic right of all human beings is to protect themselves, whether from personal harm from others or oppression by the state. All other rights flow from this right, because by exercise of arms, you secure all others. If you relinquish this right to a government, then all other rights are based upon governments self-restraint, which is a very poor guarantee of freedom.

The well regulated militia amendment, which is an archaic and completely useless amendment (which was quite useful when it was written), has been a boon to gun manufacturers. With it, they have created an entire lobbying effort which keeps gun manufacturing corporations doing very well.

Here's what Chief Justice Warren Berger said about the 2nd amendment and the way gun lobbies were using it:

While the amendment is the focus of much debate, one former Supreme Court Chief Justice, Warren Berger, had a clear view of it and the way it was being used by the gun lobby. The amendment, said Chief Justice Berger, "is the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American people by special interest groups that I have seen in my lifetime".

[Lou Minotti]

It's a myth that the right to bear arms is a sufficient safeguard against tyrannical government.

You calling something a "myth" hardly makes it so...

You mean that if the President turns into a despot tomorrow, you guys who are armed with rifles and handguns can stop him?

Why does that matter?

I mean realistically, you mean that the right to bear arms by private citizens ensures that those citizens can stand up against perhaps the most powerful war machine the world has ever known?

This "machine" is made of people. People have minds. Minds can change.

Surely, the most important safeguard against tyranny in this country is its system of checks and balances and the values and education this country has given to its citizens for the past 200 odd years.

Most important? That is a mere matter of opinion and perception.

In America, if we don't like our leaders, we can remove him every 4 years and our armed forces will defend this principle whoever happens to occupy the White House. That is our safeguard; not the right to bear arms.

Saddam had elections too. And you couldn't be more wrong about this. It isn't one vs the other...Both "safeguards" play their own individual roles.

Hitler was for gun control.

[DoloresIbarruri]

Quote by: Lou Minotti Hitler was for gun control.

What does Hitler instituting gun control have to do with the effects of guns in a society?

Societies with gun control today have almost no crime, while we in the U.S., who have guns coming out of our ***, have the highest per capita crime of all the advanced nations of earth, and higher per capita than many that are not advanced.

If I were a gun ownership supporter, I would want to see why, if it's true that guns help to curb crime, there is such rampant, violent crime here. This gunslinging nation ought to (if the gun ownership supporters are correct), have almost no crime. The problem with looking at the relationship between wide gun ownership and crime, is that the truth might slap one in the face, that is, the wide gun ownership actually increases crime, rather than curbs it.

Just a little note to bring my point home: The man that shot John F. Kennedy, by the way, bought his gun from an NRA (National Rifle Association) magazine advertisement. (The NRA is the U.S. gun ownership organization that spends the most millions on lobbying effort to keep all gun control laws dead).

[bishop]

so long as the constitution still exists, even if beaten and tattered, americans are guaranteed the right to bear arms. sure, place limitations on that right - no guns for felons, people with psychological problems, background checks, no same-day purchases, etc..

but that aside, it is a constitutional right to own a gun. and without that right, our new american heros, of the minutemen project, couldn't defend our country (because they couldn't be expected to defend a dangerous border without having protection).

[DoloresIbarruri]

Quote by: bishop so long as the constitution still exists, even if beaten and tattered, americans are guaranteed the right to bear arms. sure, place limitations on that right - no guns for felons, people with psychological problems, background checks, no same-day purchases, etc.. but that aside, it is a constitutional right to own a gun. and without that right, our new american heros, of the minutemen project, couldn't defend our country (because they couldn't be expected to defend a dangerous border without having protection).

So if the Constituion read, "Women shall wear aprons into the center of town", you'd defend that to the death. lol

I think NOT.

[tinybear]

Say, I wonder if there was gun control in Iraq when Saddam seized power? Because if there wasn't and Saddam still managed to remain in power for decades, then one wonders why he wasn't toppled by the gun-toting populace of Iraq until the US-British coalition forces did it for them.

[bishop]

Quote by: DoloresIbarruri So if the Constituion read, "Women shall wear aprons into the center of town", you'd defend that to the death. lol I think NOT.

nice stretch. i suggested nothing of the sort. if you are going to get the ban on guns that you're looking for - you need to abolish the 2nd amendment. THAT is why i made the statement that i made.

if i wanted to borrow your exaggerated logic, where the constitution's clauses can be deemed irrelavent - how about just axing the 1st amendment while you're at it? just because it's in the constitution doesn't mean that it's a guaranteed right, right?

[G. Adams]

The thing is Dolores, being able to protect yourself is a human right. It cannot be legislated away. In countries where this has occurred, the UK for example, violent crime has not reduced, in fact it has increased. The private posession of weapons does not encourage violent crime, it is something outside it. Anyone who is dangerous with a gun will be dangerous with a knife, or a pitchfork.