The Second Amendment

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
Apr 8, 2004
1,362
10
0
#1
The original to be passed out to states and ratified by them reads as follows:

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 admendment passed by the House & Senate reads as such:

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 only difference between the two the punctuation and capitalization

What is your interpretation of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution?

I was talking to a Political Science professor and he insists that the people, citizens in general, do not have the right to bear arms. He went on to say that the Amendment only applies to the Militia, active duty or reserve personnel, and it's at the discretion of the government whether or not they will allow a regular citizen to own a gun. Of course I agree with him about the governments discretion, however, if you're a law abiding citizen I don't see a problem. But I disagreement that the Amendment only pertains to the military personnel and I gave him my reasons why. It is a known fact that before and after the Constitution was written historical figures would "settling their differences" in duals, many of whom were not in the military themselves. According to the professor the sentence has one part, and the Militia and the People are the same. But if that were the case I think they would've said Soildier instead of the people. In every historical document I've read whenever the words "the People" are mentioned it is the inclusion of everyone (with the exception of slaves, but that's another story). The Amendment passed by the House and Senate has two parts, a prefatory clause, beginning with "A well regulated Militia", I believe they done this for a reason. Why would it be necessary to tell the militia that they have the right to bear arms (carry guns) anyway? A gun is necessary for a soildier to perform his duties, why would we need an Amendment to tell them this? It makes no sense. What are you guys thought on this? Do you believe its a "right" set aside only for the military or for everyone?
 
Jul 10, 2002
2,180
18
0
45
#2
I agree with your professor.

This amendment is obsolete. It was created at a time when our armed services was weak, and the intention was to make it possible to for a miltia should the native's or redcoats become a 'theat' (after all this was created right after the revolutioinary war). Also, it wanted to leave options open to the citizens protected by the constituion to form a militia should the gov't/military become corrupt, thus leaving the possibility of the militia's to form and protect the constitutional rights.

At this point in time, there is no way in hell a band of militia's stand a chance against the US armed forces.

If owning a firearm was an automatic 10-15 year offense, bet our crime rate and murder don't drop.

However, good luck tryin' to pull that away from middle america who don't want no one touchin' 'their guns or land'
 
Apr 8, 2004
1,362
10
0
#4
If it leaves the option for people to to form a Militia to protect their constitutional rights, why wouldn't the Amendment apply to all citizens. This is what I'm saying. This country was built on this principle, basically the right to revolution. Although the Declaration of Independence does not "guarentee certain rights" here is a part of it...

Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive to these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

It proves that the right of the people to bear arms and overthrow a government was widely held by many Americans.
 
Jun 13, 2006
669
2
0
43
#5
right to bear arms

i think the second amendment is still a great idea, even if owning a gun was to be illegal you think criminals would be scared to have them? no they wouldn't, why if they are already comitting crimes that have sentences that range from 5 years to life what do they care. all your doing is making it harder for law abiding citizens to protect themselves and loved ones.
 
Dec 2, 2004
239
0
0
36
#6
If it leaves the option for people to to form a Militia to protect their constitutional rights, why wouldn't the Amendment apply to all citizens. This is what I'm saying. This country was built on this principle, basically the right to revolution. Although the Declaration of Independence does not "guarentee certain rights" here is a part of it...

Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive to these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

It proves that the right of the people to bear arms and overthrow a government was widely held by many Americans.
Definitely on point, the 2nd Amendment goes hand in hand with what the declaration of independence states.

"...it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

After all the constitution was put together by men of revolution. The right to bear arms was not just the right to protect yourself against outside intrusions, but IMO it's quite blatant the main reason was to make it so the citizens can protect themselves against government if need be.

They made it clear that it is important in the system of checks and balances that the public not be left out, in fact The People should have the most power and the power to overthrow government if it infringes on the rights of the people. In order to give The People power/authority they made it possible for them to arm themselves.

Our government was set up to be very dynamic in this way, that The People be able to change things and if it ever came down to it, to start another revolution. Because of our dynamic government I don't think The People will have to do this anytime soon, our government is set up for change and non-violent revolution is made capable in a plethora of ways.

I think the founding fathers kept in mind that "if you don't make non-violent revolution possible, then you make violent revolution inevitable", a key idea in the founding of our government, they wanted to make non-violent revolution possible, to avoid that which they had recently gone through.

If someone came into power (perhaps by force or not) and discarded our current government replacing it with a tyrannical central authority, then I would think it be obvious that we as The People should uphold our duty as Americans to defend our country by ousting whomever intruded.

Quite honestly for the reasons stated above (I dont like rednecks and the sort but) I must say that gun-control is very anti-American and anti-Patriotic.
 
Dec 18, 2002
3,928
5
0
38
#7
Most of the constitution is obsolete. Americans with money are born into something more self aggrandizing than the rights listed in the constitution. These words were meant to proctor a nation of ideas only, not to compete with the fluctuation of their very tangible offspring.