Does the Second Amendment give individuals the right to bear arms?

[EdwardBernal]

Lets turn to our good friend Ted Nugent to explain the subtle nuances of the second amendment, shall we??

Keep — this means the gun is mine and you can't have it. This does not mean I will register it with a government agency. The government works for "we the people," not the other way around, regardless of what Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Hitler, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein or Barack Hussein Obama or 4 supreme justices may try to tell you.

Bear — this means I've got it right here, on me, either in my grasp or damn near. This does not mean locked away in a safe, trigger-locked or stored at the local sporting club.

Shall not be infringed — this of course is another way of saying Don't tread on me, for we will not be your willing crime victims, subjects, servants or slaves, so don't even think about it.


There, is that so hard to comprehend?

[Corey]

I like it, I like it a lot

Good post Edward.

[robert]

The stumbling block and the point that is used as an argument is the "well regulated militia" part. Folks conveniently disregard that the original documents were written in the simplest common language of the day so that it would be understood by all. We no longer speak and write like that so it's an easy argument for the simple minded but when you look at the terms as used at the time the documents were written it's clear that "well regulated" had nothing to do with regulations as we now think of them nor legislation but rather well versed or kitted (outfitted) and that the "militia" was all able bodied males. Again, the male part needs to be taken in context for the time it was written. None of it was ever construed as a "living document" or any such modern nonsense and while they put in provisions for change, they also put safeguards to try to keep the country from turning into a democracy which they feared just as much. A democracy being the tyranny of the majority.

The problem is that liberty entails great responsibility and that means personal responsibility- something folks seemingly want no part of these days. ... that whole trading liberty for security thing.

[Fireman78]

Not sure why the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is still on the table. If you don't want to own a gun.... don't buy one. But leave the rest of us out of it. I'll take my families protection into my own hands thank you very much.

[nwoods]

Robert, your post was brilliantly succinct and extremely well said. As is Ben Franklin's:
"An armed civilian is a Citizen. An unarmed civilian is a Subject" or words to that effect.

[sisu]

2nd amendment=I can own, fire, hunt, target practice, reload, buy, sell, give, etc.

Gov't, presidents, lawyers etc. First off I don't trust one of 'em. Liars all.

Currently we got a problem. Hillary is pimping for the UN Small Arms Treaty like a dog in heat. Obama if elected again will more than likely get to appoint more supreme court judges that are as awful as the current two he appointed. Those lawyers that occupy the SC are to be feared. The first gal he appointed believes an individual has no right defending oneself. The second one is a rabid anti-gunner, so as far as i am concerned he has cast his die for any future appointments.

[RKBA]

it's clear that "well regulated" had nothing to do with regulations as we now think of them nor legislation but rather well versed or kitted (outfitted)

The easiest way to understand this is "Regulated" = "Trained". If the Constitution was written today, this is the word the Fathers would have used. Look at a dictionary of 1789, this is what the definition is.

[TangoBlue]

"If the Constitution was written today..."

Hilarious! Like a document of that nature could be written in this country... today!

[skunkriver]

I have had this argument with many unaware liberals .
The 2nd amendment comunicates the fact that to defend the free state ( R.I.P. ), the free state will at times need to call on the people to assemble a fighting force to keep " We The People" in charge, not corrupt politicians.
To make that happen the founders new that the citizens would have to be given the right and RESPONSIBILTY to have the weapons , knowing that without weapons we could not keep the Constitution or the republic .
That is why the oath says to defend the Constitution from enemies from outside or WITHIN, foreign or DOMESTIC !
The problem seems to be the little detail in the word infringed, as in "shall not be".
Politicians always want to infringe in the name of public security, and if you have been watching congress this week ,take a look at the defense bill that just passed the senate.
If it is put into law we are literally reading the certificate of death for the Constitution .
There is one other bit of instruction and responsibility that our founders laid on our shoulders , it reads like this (deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed THAT WHENEVER ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT BECOMES DESTRUCTIVE TO THESE ENDS , IT IS THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO ALTER OR ABOLISH IT )
Anyone concerned with the current state of the constitution should look at a website for the Oath Keepers .

[bugnout]

The easiest way to understand this is "Regulated" = "Trained". If the Constitution was written today, this is the word the Fathers would have used. Look at a dictionary of 1789, this is what the definition is.

In my opinion, the "well regulated militia" phrase is a preamble for the 2nd amendment that describes ONE of the reasons that the right to bear arms is being affirmed. Its like the founders adding the "The ability to report the news without government interference is essential to a free nation," ... Congress will make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or the press. Regardless, since the the first 9 amendments outline individual right, I think its clear the 2nd amendment was intended to be an individual right as well.

Its unfortunate the founders choose to include that phrase as part of the amendment; I don't believe it adds anything to it.