# What DID the second Amendment really mean?



## AZ Jim (Jan 6, 2016)

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.


----------



## Manatee (Jan 6, 2016)

It means _you_ can own a gun.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 6, 2016)

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!


----------



## Ralphy1 (Jan 7, 2016)

It was meant to make sure that the young nation could protect itself from foreign governments, not from its own, IMO...


----------



## SifuPhil (Jan 7, 2016)

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.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 7, 2016)

SifuPhil said:


> 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...


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 7, 2016)

Here's an informative article regarding the formation of Militias in the states..

http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2...litia”-2nd-amendment-what-exactly-did-it-mean


----------



## BobF (Jan 7, 2016)

QuickSilver said:


> 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.


----------



## Dudewho (Jan 7, 2016)

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.


----------



## Sunny (Jan 7, 2016)

"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.


----------



## Ralphy1 (Jan 7, 2016)

At least modified, but it ain't happening...


----------



## Don M. (Jan 7, 2016)

Sunny said:


> "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.


----------



## SifuPhil (Jan 7, 2016)

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.


----------



## SifuPhil (Jan 7, 2016)

Don M. said:


> 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.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Jan 7, 2016)

This article makes the second amendment and its intent clear.  https://www.nraila.org/second-amendment/


----------



## Dudewho (Jan 7, 2016)

Levin gives the best schooling on the second amendment you'll ever hear..

https://video.search.yahoo.com/vide...&sigb=126fanhfh&sigt=11t9j2eb1&sigi=12buhnpat


----------



## Butterfly (Jan 8, 2016)

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.


----------



## tnthomas (Jan 8, 2016)

Butterfly said:


> 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.



+1.   IMO an important part of the_ balance of power_.


----------



## imp (Jan 8, 2016)

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


----------



## Butterfly (Jan 9, 2016)

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.


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 9, 2016)

Butterfly said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


----------



## BobF (Jan 9, 2016)

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.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 9, 2016)

Butterfly said:


> 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..


----------



## BobF (Jan 9, 2016)

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.


----------



## The Inspector (Jan 9, 2016)

Butterfly said:


> 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.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 9, 2016)

However... another thing to consider.. there is NO right that is without regulations..  there are regulations on free speech... with regard to hate speech..  there are regulations on the right to privacy..  These rights are regulated and rightfully so.. to protect all of us..  I firmly believe that the right to bear arms should be regulated also..  with common sense.


----------



## Butterfly (Jan 9, 2016)

Warrigal said:


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



I never said or implied the French did not help.  I said that having armed citizens went a long way towards winning the war.  And it did.  So did the French.  Two things can be true at once.


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 9, 2016)

Sorry Butterfly, I was just trying to extend the narrative out a little bit. 
Sometimes all we remember of history are the story lines we relate to.
We drop off all the rest and they tend to be airbrushed from history.
The role of women is a classic example of this.


----------



## Butterfly (Jan 10, 2016)

The Inspector said:


> 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)
> 
> ...



I disagree that the Second Amendment is ambiguous.  Rather, it is very clear -- "the right of the people shall not be infringed" is crystal clear.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Jan 10, 2016)

Butterfly said:


> I disagree that the Second Amendment is ambiguous.  Rather, it is very clear -- "the right of the people shall not be infringed" is crystal clear.



I agree Butterfly, very clear.


----------



## Don M. (Jan 10, 2016)

SeaBreeze said:


> I agree Butterfly, very clear.



It seems that this topic for/against gun control has been going on for years...perhaps centuries.  The most vocal anti-gun people would be happy to see all firearms banned, while the pro-gun people totally disagree.  This is an argument that will never be settled to everyone's satisfaction.  Only if some way were found to keep firearms out of the hands of the criminals and lunatics....and That falls under the heading of "fat chance"....would this topic move to the back burner.  

The vast majority of people....gun owners included...have no problems with better screening and background checks for gun purchases.  However, so long as the "bad guys" remain well armed, any attempts to reign in the ability of responsible people to arm themselves is going to meet with major resistance.  Guns have been part of the U.S. culture virtually since the Pilgrims first landed, and will remain part of our society.  

Some of our foreign friends think gun confiscation, such as what Australia did, would be a solution....but if such were ever tried here, we would probably quickly descend into a civil war.  Many local authorities have had gun "buy back" programs for several years, but most of the firearms surrendered in those kinds of events are usually one level above pure junk, and barely usable. 

Nope, Guns are here to stay, and the Only Sensible thing to do is to try to take steps to identify and disarm those who would use guns illegally.  So far, that "utopia" has proven to be futile.  

The truest words I've ever heard, with regard to guns in the hands of individuals is...."Remember, when Danger is Only Seconds Away, the Police are Only Minutes Away".


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 11, 2016)

I'm not sure why the conversation always turns to "taking guns away"....  Don't believe that was included in the President's EO.


----------



## Grumpy Ol' Man (Jan 12, 2016)

QuickSilver said:


> I'm not sure why the conversation always turns to "taking guns away"....  Don't believe that was included in the President's EO.



Those who have fallen victim to the brainwashing of the NRA are quick to use "taking guns away", "confiscation", "slippery slope", etc.  Few of those asking for assistance keeping guns out of the hands of the criminals and the mentally ill are in favor of a 'firearm free' society.  Yet, billions of dollars are spent filling the media with an over-abundance of rhetoric suggesting they are.  Billions of dollars are spent wining and dining legislators telling them to leave the firearm industry alone.  It's more about money than about the rights of and the safety of our citizenry.

Terrorists on no-fly lists can "legally" purchase firearms because the industry won't permit Congress to discuss it.  Criminals can go to gun shows and Craigslist to purchase guns without fear of background checks.  The mentally insane can purchase firearms legally simply be falsely filling our the application.  Parents can leave firearms unsecured and bear no responsibility when their kid takes one to school and blows away a teacher.  My Facebook page is filled with posts from those who suggest the "liberals" are coming to take away our guns.   Those posts are driven by the fear promoted by the NRA.


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 12, 2016)

I agree Grumpy. Sensible regulation of dangerous goods is not the same as total prohibition and confiscation.
However, there are some dangerous people who forfeit their right to have possession of a firearm.
The trick is to identify they before they become armed and remove any guns after they come into their possession.

In OZ members of Outlaw Motor Cycle Gangs are automatically deprived of any guns that they are found to be carrying or found in their homes when they are raided. This is because these gangs are associated with organised crime - importation of drugs and illicit guns. They are also associated with violence and intimidation. A background check with the police would red flag any known members.


----------



## BobF (Jan 12, 2016)

I don't think that is fear created by the NRA at all.    One of Obama's goals it to at least replicate the Australian way of turn in your guns.   He wants all guns off the streets when he should be working to end the crime gangs from existing.   Maybe more police in the troubled neighborhoods would be a start.   How about mandatory working for those living on the welfare freebies and in the houses they also tear up and destroy for items to sell.   

Far too much freedom for the nasty folks but that is OK as we will just punish the workers that abide the laws.   And that does not come from the NRA or the Democrats or the Republicans.


----------



## flphotog (Jan 13, 2016)

BobF said:


> I don't think that is fear created by the NRA at all.    One of Obama's goals it to at least replicate the Australian way of turn in your guns.   He wants all guns off the streets when he should be working to end the crime gangs from existing.   Maybe more police in the troubled neighborhoods would be a start.   How about mandatory working for those living on the welfare freebies and in the houses they also tear up and destroy for items to sell.
> 
> Far too much freedom for the nasty folks but that is OK as we will just punish the workers that abide the laws.   And that does not come from the NRA or the Democrats or the Republicans.


I mostly agree Bob, I'll add that anyone who believes anything our idiot in chief say has a major problem with reality. If we start picking and choosing who can do what, the question comes up, who does the picking and choosing? Frankly I don't trust the government to choose what I'm allowed to do and not to do.


----------



## Jackie22 (Jan 13, 2016)




----------



## flphotog (Jan 14, 2016)

No, you are wrong, the idiot in chief is a devout Muslim, he is after your freedom


----------



## Jackie22 (Jan 14, 2016)

You know it is just really strange how a black man in the White House affects some people's thinking.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 14, 2016)

Jackie22 said:


> You know it is just really strange how a black man in the White House affects some people's thinking.



I believe you have just hit the nail on the head Jackie..... a SCARY Black man... taking guns away from law abiding While folks... so the Black folks can take all their stuff...  How ludicrous.  If they could just stand back and see how STUPID that is.. they would have to be embarrassed.   I'm embarrassed for them.


----------

