What is your opinion of the 2nd amendment?

Question

The second amendment says:

"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. "

Answer 1

Well, I don't like guns so I am not a fan of the 2nd amendment.

Answer 2

I think its very clear. I think the latest Supreme Court ruling was correct. And I think the amendment should be repealed. The reasons behind free speach haven't changed, but the reasons behind gun control have changed a lot in the last 200 years.

Edit: I would like to make a note that a couple of people have made a big deal of that comma setting off the reason from the rule. You should keep in mind that this is a famous typo in the constitution. The first and last commas in the amendment weren't in the version passed by the house and senate, but were in the version ratified by the states. The capitalizations also changed:

The Second Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate, reads:

“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.”

The original and copies distributed to the states, and then ratified by them, had different capitalization and punctuation:

“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."

The second version clearly indicates that the purpose is the militia, but the right is that of the people as individuals. The first version is less clear and has been debated. Personally, I think the meaning is pretty similar either way, people need to have guns so that if they need to form an army, they'll be ready. This makes no sense as a purpose today and few people dispute the government's right to limit your ability to have, say, a nuclear arsonal.

Answer 3

They didn't have "regulations" in the 18th century - "well-regulated" meant well-equipped.   I.e., it meant that the individuals who comprised the militia already had their guns.

"Militia" did not and does not mean "National Guard" - that

"interpretation" is just made-up, by people who wish there wasn't a second amendment.   "Militia" means "militia."   If they'd meant National Guard they would have written National Guard; if they'd meant armed forces they'd have written armed forces.  Militia means just what it sounds like - militia.   As in the minutemen, the Michigan militia - or the Concord/Lexington militia who fought the first real battle of the Revolution - against their own country's army who had shown up to take their guns!

The militia is an ad hoc, citizens band, formed to defend the populace against all comers - including the central government.

For such a militia to be well-equipped would require an armed citizenry.

Thus, because the ability to call up a militia is so crucial to a free state, an individual must have the right to keep and bear arms.   That's why it says "the right of the people."    "The people" in all the other Amendments clearly means individuals - otherwise the other Amendments wouldn't make any sense.    Again, if they meant the states, they'd have written the states, not written the people.   "The people" means the people.

The Constitution means exactly what it says.

There are also provisions for people who don't like what it says to try to get it amended.   I propose that opponents of the second amendment should try to amend the constitution rather than play the game of trying to "interpret" it to mean the opposite of what it says.  That would set a dangerous precedent - our rights are protected by a set of words - if you can just deprive some of those words of their meaning, then you can do that to the rest of the words too, and we will have no rights at all.

That said I would oppose such a petition since I agree with the Founders that a well regulated militia is necessary to a free state, and thus the right of the people to keep and bear arms should not be infringed.

Answer 4

“ 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."

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

you can't take away me guns. the part before the comma is a reason. the second half is the part that counts.

Answer 5

The scariest thing about that ruling is that four out of nine of our Supreme Court Justices can'r read. It could have so easily go the other way. I chose my presidential canadates based mostly on the type of SC judges they will appoint.

Answer 6

I'm pretty fond of the entire Bill of Rights. Nowhere but in America, even in the most democratic of countries, is there the philosophy that there are innate (or if you prefer "God-given) rights that the government has no authority to negate, even if the laws were changed, or even if the amendments didn't exist.

The second is of exceptional importance in that it recognizes the absolute right to self-defense, the implication behind it being that the worth of one's life is so high that no power is greater.

Answer 7

Someone in another question posted a history of 20th century totalitarian regimes. The first step is always to take away the citizens' weapons. Then the defenseless citizens who would dare to speak against the government are rounded up and exterminated. This has happened again and again.

As V put it, citizens should not be afraid of their government. Governments should be afraid of their people.

Answer 8

The same as the 1st and 3rd through the 10th...

All individual rights.

"Because an army is needed to protect the country, the right of the people to protect themselves from that army shall not be infringed."

Does that help clear it up?

Answer 9

It's hot!

Not as hot as the 10th though!

I personally HATE guns with a passion.  But I will defend your right to have them!

GO CONSTITUTION!

(except the parts that need to be updated!)

Answer 10

As a life member of the NRA, I am very pro 2nd amendment.  As a Virginian, I am by law, a member of the malitia.  The Virginia Governor can beckon all and any 18 year old to help with any civil emergency that threatens the security of the Commonwealth.  The State will not provide gun or ammo.  It is the responsibility of the individual to provide their own gun and ammo.

Answer 11

its the only thing keeping us from being totalitarian. the UK has banned most guns and made it hard to get the ones that ARE legal and now knife homocides are extremely common. its not gonna change the amount of murders its gonna change the way they happen. we need to defend what the constitution says and stick to it and if we dont we're gonna end up like socialist europe.

Answer 12

I think everyone should be able to own a gun. I have my concealed weapon license and I take my gun everywhere with me.

Answer 13

Its the only thing keep en us free.

Answer 14

I like it cuz i can use my .22 gauge tell them chillin to GET OFF MY d**n PROPERTAY!!!

Answer 15

That comma after militia has always meant to me that I should be able to own a gun. The majority of guns that are used in crimes are bought illegally. The VT massacre guy (I know his name I choose not to use it) bought a gun illegally, but his mental history wasn't in the system. Stupid beurocrocies.

So everyone should be allowed to own a gun and carry in around concealed. Of course by everyone I don't mean criminals or unbalanced people, and I have no problem with a three day waiting period. But gun ownership is one of the basic rights as a US citizen and studies have shown that restrictive gun laws DO mean that only criminals have guns.

Answer 16

I own a gun. I guess that would make me pro.

Answer 17

When our Constitution was framed, there were a lot of disagreements that had to be settled with compromises.  One big argument had to do with whether or not we should have a permanent 'standing 'army.  Nations in Europe had standing armies, and besides the expense, they were always fighting a war.  And if the army was powerful enough there was always the possibility that it would just take over the country.

Traditionally, the colonies had had militias, part-time volunteer citizen armies.  The Minutemen who won the Revolutionary War were colonial militias.  A lot of people wanted to stick with that system.

In the end, a compromise was hammered out.  States would be allowed to keep their militias of temporary, volunteer soldiers.  But the federal government would also have a permanent, professional standing army.

The 2nd Amendment really only allows states to have their militias.  Which today we call the National Guard. Up to last week, our Supreme Court has always upheld this view.  The ruling last week was expressly not a repudiation of it, it only said that Washington DC couldn't ban guns.  

Personally I think even that is wrong, but this is the court that suspended recounts in Florida to select GW Bush as our president.  Nothing they do would surprise me.

Answer 18

whats the second amendment