Comprehending the 2nd Amendment

The United States 2nd Amendment to the 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.” This is the Thomas Jefferson authenticated ratified version by all the states at that time.

How is the statement to be read and understood, and more importantly, does it refer to an individual right to own a gun for one’s own self-defence?

Let’s be clear here, we are dealing with a ratified clause enshrined in the Constitution. It is irrelevant what commentaries followed, or what interpretation came by voices seeking to usurp the amendment’s intended meaning by which it should be understood.

Clearly, one’s first comprehension of the whole statement can only be understood to disclude the individual right to own a gun for one’s own self-defence, one’s own self-defence is neither discussed nor enshrined in the Constitution. The statement is one of plurality, not of individuality.

The statement is about the security and defence of the state, by persons living in the state, contributing and participating the arms they keep in their home to the state’s defence against a threat to the state as part of a well-regulated militia. The right of the people (this is plural, not singular) to ‘keep’ arms in their home is entirely for the state’s defence against another state or states. One such clear example of this was the American Civil War, where Southern states fought against Northern states…and lost.

The irony is that in the modern world, the 2nd amendment needs to be amended in order to ratify a right for the arms people are allowed to keep in their home to bear them for their own individual self-defence, because no such right exists in the Constitution.

The concept of ‘keeping arms’ is to store them, whereas the concept to bear arms is to carry them, not on an individual basis, but on a group basis…as a militia. The use of the word ‘people’ rather than the word ‘persons’, maintains the non-individuated plurality throughout the whole statement. Why is the statement pluralised?

Simply because the threat to the state does not only come from another state or group of states, it also comes from within the state. For the defence of a state’s social and communal stability, it was necessary to curtail the rights of the individual to keep and bear arms, so that disgruntled communities living within the state cannot lawfully attack the state. It is a lawful expectation of the people living in the state to duty-bind the state to defend them, which is why police forces and the home guard were created.

Individuals do have a right to defend themselves, in so much and in proportion to the threat upon them in circumstances where neither the police nor the Home Guard are able to be summoned to their defence. However, this aspect of individual self-defence has been skewed all out of proportion, and now requires a strong legislative grip to be brought to bear on the issue.

Perhaps, it would good to be reminded that random and instantaneous vigilantism is not good for the community. The reason being is that innocents can suffer under it, non-involved people can become involved by getting caught in the crossfire and/or gun fire exchange, potentially increasing the likelihood of deaths and casualties. This in itself nullifies the twisted logic of ‘carry and conceal’. It also places the police and Home Guard in very peculiar and threatening positions. They will have no idea who is concealing and carrying, nor if they are a good guy or a bad guy.

As things stand, the Constitution is not a haven for an individual’s right to bear arms for their own self-interest and self-preservation.

a reply to: elysiumfire

The Supreme Court would seem to disagree with your interpretation.

a reply to: elysiumfire

”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.”

Right there, bolded. The right of the people, not the right of the militia.

The unorganized militia is made up of every able-bodied male. Nowadays we'd also include females.

The 2nd doesn't grant anything. It merely enumerates a pre-exisiting right ( the right to defense of life and self ). The 2nd acts as a negative authority on the federal government and says "You can't infringe upon this right."

They have infringed plenty already. Keep infringing and we may see the 2nd American Revolution.

a reply to: elysiumfire

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: elysiumfire

You want to know why that's not argued? Simple fact is that it wouldn't take much to start a training program through the NRA and at that point the militia men would argue the point that if the intent is the fear of tyranny, than the militia should have access to anything the government does. You would then have a bunch of people with a different idea of the future from the lib/Democratic preference all training together with military weaponry.

I assure you if you're on the other side of the political spectrum you'd rather have semi trained individuals with weaponry that is similar to military grade.

a reply to: elysiumfire



When the 2nd amendment was written, gunfire was at around 3 rounds per MINUTE. Not second. Interesting fact. It was created in 1791, for God sake. Times have changed.

a reply to: elysiumfire

like how we pose to keep up with americas gangsters who own rpgs machine guns & all that stuff & terrist have bombs & stuff when we cant even own a bumpstock. like if you wanna make people run to you for help, equip they enemies let them evovle but keep the people you want to have want help unable to progress with weapons. we are barely able to protect ourselves because of our enemies being more able to have weapons than us.

a reply to: elysiumfire

like how we pose to keep up with americas gangsters who own rpgs machine guns & all that stuff & terrist have bombs & stuff when we cant even own a bumpstock. like if you wanna make people run to you for help, equip they enemies let them evovle but keep the people you want to have want help unable to progress with weapons. we are barely able to protect ourselves because of our enemies being more able to have weapons than us.

a reply to: elysiumfire

I’m pretty sure “the right to bear arms” was specifically directed at controlling the government or state on state violence..

However, that ship sailed well before the first Apache helicopter was built.


The fact is it is a 200+ year old document that was the best its crafters could come up with, relative to the time they lived in.. they had LITERALLY no way to imagaine the modern tech that would be available.

Weaponry for personal protection was considered to go without saying.. the states regulated individuals. The Fed regulates the states.



I’m pretty sure the modern “to protect ones home and family “ comes from a WAY later Supreme Court decision.

The thought of regular citizens or Rockefeller types wielding private armies and military weaponry is and was horrifying, but good look getting the votes for amending the constitution in ANY AGE.

It took the civil war to pass the 14th.



I have no problem with guns. Half my family hunts every season. From crossbow to muzzleloader...

But I hate propaganda and broken @$$ logic..


A) “The right to bear arms and maintain a militia “ has jack to do with home protection.. which half the NRA types are happy to tell people.

B) we let the military get WAY too big for militias to fight “government tyranny”.

C) of course guns kill people. That is why soldiers don’t carry Honda civics into battle and people don’t buy Mazdas for home protection..

D) no they probably would not just “use something else” and if they did its doubtful what they used would be as effective. Without guns every terrorist is forced to pull off some McGyver type plan.


MOST IMPORTANTLY!!!!

E) no one is comming to get the guns. No elected official has EVER been quoted as saying “they want to ban guns”. Nor is there a law enforcement/military body willing to do it.

It would be and has been political suicide just to suggest it.. which is exactly why the gop shills pretend their opponents all want to ban them...... and the sheep just bleat on behind them decade after decade..

It has always just been right wing propaganda..

a reply to: kurthall

To assume that our forefathers didn't understand the impact of advancements in technology, as if there weren't military advancements both during their time and before, is gross negligence in understanding the path that led us to this point in history.

a reply to: elysiumfire

Thank you for your "interpretation" of the 2nd amendment.
Good thing this matter has been settled in the supreme Court.

a reply to: elysiumfire

And how can you bear arms...if you can't "keep" arms. That makes absolutely no sense.

a reply to: TheLead

thats how america started & we grew fine with amory right until they started to say nope not yours, mine, if you need help come to me i will protect you. peace through strength, i keep all the technology, you ask me if i feel like helping today, just dont piss me off or i wont help they say, happens everyday.

originally posted by: cynicalheathen
a reply to: elysiumfire

”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.”

Right there, bolded. The right of the people, not the right of the militia.

The unorganized militia is made up of every able-bodied male. Nowadays we'd also include females.

It actually say a 'well regulated militia' and the militia of the day did get the best of arms. The Supreme court before 2008 had decided that it should only be the 'militia' and not the individual that should keep the arms.

The NRA fought a political fight in the courts for people to keep arms, and Scalia agreed, but he couldn't turn round and say that they should have all the military might of the 20th century used by a regular army so he said;
“handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.”
So at the very least, it is more than arguable people could keep handguns, but not all the other stuff..which to most people is sane and sensible.
However, in effect, the 2nd amendment has changed, whichever way you cut it, it's no longer the constitution as it once was...and so ends it's dogma.

The 2d Amendment was one of the amendments commonly referred to as The Bill of Rights.

The Constitution had been around awaiting ratification for a number of years. It wasn't happening because there was no trust. Somebody finally got smart and drafted a list of basic human rights and added them in to the Constitution (which was subsequently/promptly ratified).

Take away any of those amendments ... dissolve the entire constitution and dissolve the country.

If you want to impress me OP, go back and find each instance of re-drafting of the 2d. The original part of it, "The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." is right where you'll discover the truth. Allowing all the other fluffy wording | pshaw!!

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.

It's talking about two separate but equal things.

The RIGHT of the states to have militias.

The RIGHT of the people.

Neither was to be infringed.

As in denied, disparaged as it later said in the 9th.

Do not take the second out of context.

The entire Bill of Rights is at play.

The Fifth for example.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unlesson a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

www.law.cornell.edu...

People need to get this through their brainwashed heads.

Hands OFF.

The purpose of that piece of paper is so clearly ignored.

Was a line in the sand telling the state to keep its hands off.

A limit to the state's power, not ours.

Comprehend that.

shall not be infringed

Infringe
INFRINGE, verb transitive infrinj'. [Latin infringo; in and frango, to break. See Break.]

1. To break, as contracts; to violate, either positively by contravention, or negatively by non-fulfillment or neglect of performance. A prince or a private person infringes an agreement or covenant by neglecting to perform its conditions, as well as by doing what is stipulated not to be done.

2. To break; to violate; to transgress; to neglect to fulfill or obey; as, to infringe a law.

3. To destroy or hinder; as, to infringe efficacy. [Little used.]
Webster's Dictionary 1828 - Online Edition

see infrango in the french to know where we got the word infringe

you can not infringe upon the something but you can infringe something

the problem when referring to the 2nd as it was written is the difference in the dictionaries then vs now.

when going back and forth researching it is clear that the right to have guns can never be taken legally short of removing of the second but can be as well regulated as any militia can be regulated.

originally posted by: toysforadults
shall not be infringed

Beat me to it.

Could you imagine what would happen if a nation wide militia tried to organize in the United States?

Mass panic in the media.